House of Commons

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Thursday 23 January 2014

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps he is taking to encourage more people to become engineers.

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

12. What steps he is taking to encourage more people to become engineers.

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

14. What steps he is taking to encourage more people to become engineers.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

The Government are working with employers, professional bodies and higher and further education institutions to implement the Perkins review of engineering skills and boost careers in engineering, particularly for women. In September we announced a £400 million boost for STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—teaching in universities.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

In a recent Science and Technology Committee report “Educating tomorrow’s engineers”, we recommended that

“learned societies, professional engineering institutions and trade bodies put an obligation on their members to systematically engage in promoting engineering and technology as a career through a structured programme of educational engagement.”

What progress, if any, has been made in making that come to fruition?

[Vince Cable]

There is a recognition of the seriousness of the shortage of engineers, and we are trying to address that in a variety of ways. On the particular programmes that my hon. Friend has described, we are working with the professional associations on work experience for students and industrial placements for teachers, because we have to change the perceptions of young people in schools.

[Mr Turner]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s initiatives to encourage more people into engineering. I founded the Isle of Wight Technology Group to help engineering and technology companies work together on training, recruitment and other issues. Will he say how many new engineers are being grown on the island, and will he come to the Isle of Wight to see for himself the good work that technology companies are doing?

[Vince Cable]

I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise number, but I know that a depth of engineering talent is arising from the island’s successful companies, both in the maritime sector and in aerospace. We want to build on that, and I would be absolutely delighted to meet him and his engineers on the Isle of Wight—I always enjoy a walk on Tennyson down.

[Oliver Colvile]

As my right hon. Friend knows, Devonport dockyard is the only naval dockyard in the country that refits and refurbishes our nuclear submarines. How have the Government helped—and how can we help—to make sure that we protect Britain’s nuclear engineering skills base and ensure that the work force are not lured away to Hinkley C, just up the peninsula?

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is right to say that in an environment where there is an acute shortage of professional engineers and craftsmen, there is a tendency to poach skills. We see that happening in other sectors, like the motor car industry, oil and gas and so on. The answer is to produce more engineers, and he will be aware that in his constituency, or certainly in the city of Plymouth, we have the 600-place university technology college, which is growing with support from the Government. That is a very positive step forward, and I am sure he will be pleased with it.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s good news from the automotive sector should encourage more people to become engineers, but that there is still a real issue to address to ensure that the automotive supply chain gets the engineers it needs and that young people are encouraged to go into it? Does that not involve doing more to ensure that training meets the needs of the supply chain and that small businesses in that sector get the investment they need, which requires a different approach from finance houses?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the key challenge now faced by the car industry, which is a great success story, is to progress the success of OEMs—original equipment manufacturers—which are expanding, down through their supply chains, which were hollowed out in earlier years. We are addressing that issue through the Automotive Council and the industry strategy. That is progressing well, but it does need a great deal of support for the training base and the training of engineers, which is what we are doing through our apprenticeship programme.

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

Young people across Plymouth are telling me that they feel as though they are little more than walking pots of money when it comes to careers advice and that schools are almost harassing them at times to keep them in school. That obviously militates against some of them going to do engineering apprenticeships, as my neighbour the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has pointed out. What more can the Secretary of State do to set up an independent careers advice arrangement, so that these young people can get broader advice, not specific and closed advice from their schools?

[Vince Cable]

Yes indeed. The all-age careers service that we have put in place is now generally acknowledged to be giving successful advice through the age range. On schools, we recognise that there is an issue to address on the career paths of the non-academic—the more vocationally trained. We shall shortly be issuing guidance to schools on how to access independent advice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The aerospace industry has shown marked improvement in the past few months. Just last week, Magellan Aerospace in Belfast announced a new job contract through the Prime Minister, and jobs and opportunities were created. Is it now time for higher education and for industry, particularly aerospace, to work together to make sure that those jobs are taken by young people from universities and colleges at this time?

[Vince Cable]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was in Belfast recently and met a combination of Northern Ireland universities and industry. They are working together and realise that a recovery is taking place, despite the problems of the traditional industries around Belfast. Such work requires the kind of collaboration he has described.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State reassure me that he regards the excellent John Perkins review of engineering skills as the irreducible minimum necessary to address the urgent shortages in engineering skills in our country, and that his Department will remain open to ideas better to market engineering to young people, and to address the appalling gender stereotyping that is frustrating so many women’s ambitions to get into engineering?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, it is an exceptionally good report. The challenge is a massive one. There is an acute shortage of engineers, and the problem is particularly serious among women. I believe that something in the order of one in 10 professional engineers is a woman, and about one in 20 in advanced apprenticeships. We are actively seeking to address that with the professional institutions.

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I too wish to ask the Secretary of State about the engineers of the future. The mismanaged free-for-all that gave private students unfettered access to the student loan system has now cost his Department so dear that big cuts are being discussed. On top of the huge cuts for educating 18-year-olds in college, we now hear rumours that the student opportunity fund that helps poorer future engineers will be completely axed. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to promise the House that he will not sacrifice social mobility to pay for the chaos in his Department’s budget?

[Vince Cable]

The right hon. Gentleman could perhaps do a little better than rely on rumours that have very little foundation. The substance of the matter is that in the autumn statement, we were committed to additional investment of £400 million in STEM teaching to provide modern facilities that were neglected during the years he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to ensure that apprenticeships respond to employers’ needs.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

Our apprenticeship reforms are responding to the needs of employers by putting them in the driving seat. Trailblazers, led by employers and professional bodies, is leading the way in developing new standards in a wide range of sectors.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the 300 in 100 campaign in Cornwall on its aim to get 300 new apprenticeships in 100 days? I participated in the campaign in St Mellion a few weeks ago along with many employers in my constituency.

[Matthew Hancock]

I would love to congratulate my hon. Friend, who has teamed up with other MPs across Cornwall, including my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for St Ives (Andrew George) and many others. Many Members of this House have been part of the 100 in 100 campaigns to get 100 apprentices in 100 days, and Cornwall is taking it just that bit further.

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

The number of apprentices in the 16-to-18 age group is dropping at the moment, with serious implication for our long-term skills base. Will the Minister look again at the proposals of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to use public procurement contracts to ensure a certain level of recruitment for that age group in the way in which the previous Government did and local authorities are doing?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course, Crossrail, which is the biggest public construction project in Europe, has in it exactly what the hon. Gentleman describes. He will have seen last week that we announced 2,000 new apprentices as part of High Speed 2. I entirely agree about the need to drive up the number of apprentices. We introduced a rule that every apprenticeship had to be a minimum of a year, and the number of apprenticeships for those aged between 16 to 19 lasting a year or more has gone up sharply. We must be careful to consider the reason for the numbers. Apprenticeships of under a year, in many cases without a job attached, are not really apprenticeships at all.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of increasing the skills of apprenticeships is the creation of pre-apprenticeship schools, otherwise known as university technical colleges? Will he look at expanding the Government’s programme of 24 UTCs, one of which will be in Harlow, so that there is one in every town across the country?

[Matthew Hancock]

I absolutely support my hon. Friend in his enthusiasm for UTCs, not only the one in Harlow, for which, I know, he is a great campaigner, but those across the country.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

But why have Ministers failed to match their rhetoric with action? Something like what my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) suggests in his Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill would create thousands of new quality apprenticeship opportunities by requiring all major suppliers on large public projects to offer apprenticeships.

[Matthew Hancock]

As I said, we do that on some of the largest procurements. If we are talking about action, the fact that a record number of people are in apprenticeships is action that we should support, and the fact that 1.5 million people across the country have started apprenticeships since 2010 is also action we should all be proud of.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the level of UK exports.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, released on 9 January, show that UK exports totalled more than £494 billion in 2012, the highest level on record. Exports in the first 11 months of 2013 were in excess of £40 billion a month.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful for that answer. It has been very encouraging to hear a number of businesses in my constituency, including the Hainsworth mill in Stanningley, reporting increased exports in recent months. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the performance of UK exports in some of the newer growth markets?

[Michael Fallon]

In spite of tough trading conditions, British exports of goods have increased under this Government—to China by 98%, India by 56%, Russia by 110% and Brazil by 45%.

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

The Minister will be aware of the importance of Airbus to UK exports. Is he as concerned as I am about the billions of pounds of subsidy to Boeing that has been announced by Washington state and sanctioned by the US Government?

[Michael Fallon]

These are issues I discuss with Airbus from time to time. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of action under the World Trade Organisation on two cases, one involving subsidies to Boeing and the other involving alleged subsidies to Airbus. I hope that some of those issues can be resolved in discussions on the transatlantic trade partnership.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

In Germany, the Mittelstand leads the way in exports. What steps are the Government taking to target our mid-sized businesses, particularly for emerging markets?

[Michael Fallon]

I recognise the enormous amount of work my hon. Friend did when he served in the Department before me. We have a target of assisting some 1,500 mid- size businesses by 2015. My noble Friend Lord Livingston yesterday announced a major enhancement of the programme that will see an expanded regional network of advisers in UK Trade & Investment, with some 28 advisers in place across all nine English regions, specifically targeted to drive up the number of mid-sized businesses that might be deciding to export for the first time or to increase their performance.

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

Given the recent comments from Nissan and other manufacturers about the importance of Britain’s staying in the EU, does the Minister agree that it is vital that Britain stay in the European Union and that the current uncertainty about Britain’s future membership that we see in some quarters is damaging to the future of British job prospects?

[Michael Fallon]

What is important for car manufacturers from overseas, such as Nissan, and for all foreign investors in Britain is that the single market is strengthened and available to them. One of the purposes of our reform programme in Europe is to ensure that the member states that do not wish to become enmeshed in the eurozone can still enjoy the full protection and opportunities of the single market.

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

May I warmly congratulate UK Trade & Investment on its work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs promoting the food and drink sector and also the GREAT Britain campaign, which is, I think, genuinely great? Will my right hon. Friend set aside a small promotional budget to support our presence at international food fairs? We are outgunned by other countries, and a pavilion that showed off the best of British produce would bring dividends.

[Michael Fallon]

I shall certainly see what more we can do in that regard. I know that food and drink exports will be one of the themes of our commitment to Expo in Milan later this year and I shall be discussing our pavilion in Milan this evening and tomorrow.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I detect a real note of complacency in the Minister’s remarks. Let us not crack open the imported champagne just yet. The Secretary of State’s trade and investment White Paper of 2011 stated:

“The UK now needs to rebalance its economy…toward increased exports and investment.”

Yet the value of exports fell in the last quarter and net trade acted as a drag on GDP growth for much of 2013. Given that the trade gap remains persistently high and is growing, manufacturing as a share of our economy has fallen under this Government, and investment has continued to flatline, will the Minister now concede that an export-led recovery has not materialised?

[Michael Fallon]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should talk down British exporting and British manufacturing at precisely the time we see a renaissance not only in our automotive industry but in our aerospace and other industries. Of course trading conditions are tough, not least with problems in the eurozone and elsewhere, but exports are up and we continue to help drive increased export performance through supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and mid-sized businesses.

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

4. What assessment he has made of the value for money achieved for the public purse through the recent sale of shares in Royal Mail.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer this question together with Question 5.

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately not. It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister of State to seek to do so, but the attempted grouping falls because I fear that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) is not present in the Chamber.

[Michael Fallon]

I was hoping there would be some interest in this question.

We believe that value for money should be assessed over the long term and should consider not merely the proceeds from the initial sale but the value of the taxpayer’s retained stake in Royal Mail and the reduced risk to the taxpayer and the six-day-a-week universal service of a stable company with access now to private capital.

[Gregg McClymont]

Given the botched and imprudent sale of the first tranche of Royal Mail shares by this Government at the expense of taxpayers, the public will be concerned about the emerging reports that the Government intend to sell off the remaining family silver before the next election. Will the Minister confirm whether those reports are accurate?

[Michael Fallon]

I can confirm, first, that the sale of Royal Mail was a success. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted that the shares have risen in value, reflecting Royal Mail’s interim trading results and the long-overdue agreement with the union. Any decision on a sale of the remaining stake is still to be taken.

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

One of the hidden values for money is the fact that of the 150,000 eligible hard-working postmen and women who could take up their free allocation, only 368 said no. That means that as the company goes from strength to strength, those who directly work for Royal Mail will now financially benefit from that. Is not that a very good thing?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. I would have thought that Labour Members would welcome this extension of employee share ownership. I am delighted that 99% of Royal Mail’s employees took up the offer and now have a stake in the success of that company as it moves forward.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said, the fire sale of Royal Mail has cost the taxpayer in excess of £750 million, but it has not taken it long to enjoy its new privatised status. Reports in the media suggest that the board of Royal Mail is about to propose a significant pay increase for the chief executive to bring her in line with those in other FTSE 100 companies. The Business Secretary says that he will use the Government’s remaining stake as the largest stakeholder to veto the proposals. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, his boss, or is this just froth?

[Michael Fallon]

If this were a fire sale, it would certainly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has said, be one of the longest fire sales in history, given that Governments have been trying to sell Royal Mail for over 20 years. I think we should salute Moya Greene’s achievement in transforming a loss-making public corporation into one of Britain’s top 100 companies and congratulate her, as one of all too few female chief executives, on her award as business person of the year. We have yet to receive any proposal from the remuneration committee.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

When I last visited Stroud sorting office just before Christmas, I noticed that the much-needed modernisation programme was being started. Does the Minister agree that that has been made possible by the sale of shares and that it represents a Government success?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. The purpose of the sale was to enable Royal Mail to have access to private capital so that it would not be dependent on the taxpayer for ensuring the successful delivery of the six-day-a-week universal service on which we and all our constituents rely.

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

6. What steps he is taking to support women in business.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

This Government want to see as many women as possible going into and progressing in business. We commissioned the Women’s Business Council to look at what barriers prevent women from reaching their potential and how to maximise their contribution to economic growth. We work closely with Lord Davies to increase the number of women on boards. Women now account for 20.4% of board members in FTSE 100 companies, up from 12.5% in February 2011.

[Seema Malhotra]

Last week I met a woman called Adele who has set up a child care business. A few years ago her bank refused to lend to her because, in her view, it just did not understand her business plan. Such was her belief in her business that she remortgaged her home and her business has now expanded to look after 300 children. Given the lower levels of finance being offered to British female entrepreneurs compared with their European counterparts, does the Minister support Labour’s proposal for regional banks, which could be better placed to understand and support local small and medium-sized enterprises?

[Jenny Willott]

The Government are doing quite a lot to ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to finance, and it sounds as though the hon. Lady’s constituent is a very good example of that. The Government Equalities Office offers child care grants to men and women, but primarily to women, who want to set up businesses in that particular area. The Government also support the Aspire fund, which aims to get equity into businesses run by women. The Start-Up Loans Company has offered 12,500 start-up loans and well over a third of them have gone to women to help them set up businesses that I hope will be as successful as that run by the hon. Lady’s constituent.

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

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating those women in rural businesses, primarily farms? Women are the backbone of the farming community and have taken the opportunity to diversify locally. Examples include Shepherds Purse cheese makers, Get Ahead Hats and countless other business opportunities for women.

[Jenny Willott]

The hon. Lady highlights some extremely important businesses, and similar examples can be found across the whole of the UK and in a lot of our rural areas. Women are extremely good at identifying new opportunities to diversify businesses in more remote areas. They are often incredibly business savvy and can make a real success of it.

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

17. Many women see their careers stall when they become pregnant. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is carrying out a welcome, if belated, inquiry into pregnancy discrimination, but it will be many months before we have the findings. In the meantime, is the Equality Advisory Support Service monitoring the number and nature of pregnancy and maternity-related queries so that the Minister can take early action on systemic patterns of discrimination?

[Jenny Willott]

As the hon. Lady undoubtedly knows, it is about 10 years since the last research was done to look properly at the rate of discrimination against women as a result of pregnancy. That 2005 report showed that about 30,000 women had lost their jobs as a result of pregnancy. As the hon. Lady has said, the Government have commissioned the EHRC to do a proper piece of research to identify what the situation is now, and we hope that will give us a good idea of what needs to be done. It is clear that discrimination against women on the basis of pregnancy is completely illegal, and it also makes terribly bad business sense for businesses across the country. This Government want to do something to ensure that we get rid of that type of discrimination.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating a constituent of mine, Jennifer Davies, who has set up a small company called Get Customised, which produces a range of customised products? She is going from strength to strength, not simply because of her determination and dedication, but because of the benefits she has received from a Government-backed start-up loan.

[Jenny Willott]

I am very glad to hear of the success of some of the start-up loans provided by this Government, and that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to identify an example in his constituency. Businesses across the country are going extremely well as a result of support from this Government. Another scheme that the Government are doing to help women in particular is the Get Mentoring scheme, into which we have put nearly £2 million. More than 40% of the mentors already trained are women. The scheme is designed to try to get more women to start up businesses and to be as successful as his constituent.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister set out how, in her quest to have more women on boards, she intends to ensure that we do not just see the same women on more boards or, indeed, more women on fewer boards?

[Jenny Willott]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in rejoicing at the fact that the FTSE 100 now has only two companies with all-male boards. A couple of years ago, the figure was 24 boards, so there has been significant progress. To increase the number of women going on to boards, we are doing everything we can to improve the pipeline, which means that more women below board level can get the support, mentoring and advice that they need to make themselves ready for and to get into board positions. We are doing what we can to increase the number of women on boards and to increase the flow of women, so that we can bring new blood on to the boards of Britain’s businesses.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

7. Whether net lending to businesses by banks has risen in any of the last 24 months.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

The answer is yes. The most recent data from the Bank of England show that net lending to small and medium-sized enterprises was positive in March, June and November, and the Bank of England’s most recent “Trends in Lending” and “Credit Conditions” reports show that confidence is beginning to return, helped by interventions such as the British business bank.

[Alex Cunningham]

According to the chamber of commerce, unemployment in the north-east has gone up by 1,000 in the past quarter and by 16,000 in the past year, of whom 13,000 are women. We agree that small and medium-sized businesses should be driving the economy up and unemployment down, but I am told that many in my region see confusing Government schemes and the banks as failing to give them the help and resources they need. What specific things will the Secretary of State do to help people in the north-east and let our people share in the so-called upturn?

[Vince Cable]

Anybody who looks at yesterday’s employment figures will realise that we are in a very positive trend on employment—far in excess of what was predicted. Specifically in relation to the north-east, the hon. Gentleman will know that the main mechanism the Government use to support jobs and companies is the regional growth fund, and I think that the north-east has received more regional growth fund support than almost any other part of the country.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that as businesses expand and get more sales, they generate more cash, so we would not necessarily expect net lending to go up?

[Vince Cable]

That is certainly a factor. Indeed, many individual companies—quite apart from the banks—have become highly risk-averse, but I do not doubt that the supply of credit is a serious problem. That is why we have made interventions, such as the British business bank, that are already making a significant difference.

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

19. May I tell the Secretary of State that in Yorkshire, too, small and medium-sized businesses in particular find it difficult to borrow money from conventional banks, which is why they increasingly look to crowdfunding for finance? Has he seen that Nicola Horlick has set up a new organisation to get into the crowdfunding market, because she too believes that conventional banks do not respond fast enough or efficiently enough?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Indeed, one of the more encouraging signs over the past year is that unconventional forms of lending, such as crowdfunding, are becoming increasingly common. The Government are supporting two of the main schemes that operate on a peer-to-peer lending basis. Lending is expanding very rapidly in that sector for the small and medium-sized companies that need it.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

8. What support he is providing to the life sciences sector.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

We are supporting this key sector through our life sciences and agri-tech strategies, which back research and development and promote manufacturing. Since the Prime Minister launched our strategy two years ago, industry has announced investment of £2 billion, which is a vote of confidence in what we are doing.

[Julian Sturdy]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to encouraging the nation’s agri-tech industry and to recognising the importance of food security. The Minister and the Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of York and north Yorkshire’s huge potential to become a global leader in food manufacturing, agri-tech and biorenewables industries. As such, will the Minister clarify whether there are any plans to announce further catapult centres in this field?

[Mr Willetts]

There is a lot of interest in our new centres for agricultural innovation. We expect to announce the bidding process for the first one in the spring and we will consult on themes for the other centres. I congratulate my hon. Friend on reminding us of the case for York as a possible centre. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was brought up there, but we will try not to allow that to affect our decision.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to support small businesses.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

We are passionate supporters of small businesses. More than 12,000 start-up loans have been approved; over the past year, UK Trade & Investment has helped more than 30,000 businesses to export; and, in April this year, a new employer allowance will cut £2,000 from the national insurance bill of every company in the country.

[Mark Pawsey]

Located at the crossroads of the UK motorway network, Rugby is a great place to do business. Our excellent small businesses can benefit from the initiatives that the Minister has outlined. What would he say to small businesses that want to grow as the economy expands, but are unable to find larger premises because many of the older buildings have been demolished and speculative development of the type they need has not taken place?

[Matthew Hancock]

Ensuring that the commercial property market works effectively is an important part of reforming the banking system and getting it back on its feet after the crisis. That market is one of the main routes through which we can open up more development and ensure that there is more capacity, so that when small businesses want to expand, they have the physical space in which to do so.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Small businesses on Worcester’s high street are looking forward to the employment allowance and to the generous rebate on business rates that was announced in the autumn statement. Will the Minister join me in urging Worcester’s Labour-led city council not to put up parking charges by 10%, which would be a kick in the teeth for the high street?

[Matthew Hancock]

Ensuring that any agency of Government or any council can live within its means is a crucial part of good governance in these difficult times. The approach that the Government have taken is to do that through making savings, difficult as it is. That is clearly working and I recommend it to the Labour-led council in Worcester.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of innovation in the UK manufacturing sector.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Manufacturing businesses are among the most innovative in the UK. In 2012, they spent £12 billion on research and development. We are investing in R and D alongside them. In particular, we are backing eight great technologies that are shaping the industries of the future.

[Laura Sandys]

The Government focus a lot on labour productivity, but what support are they giving to innovation in resource productivity, which accounts for two thirds of the costs in manufacturing?

[Mr Willetts]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the interesting and imaginative work she is doing on this subject with other hon. Friends. Through our support for R and D—notably but not solely through our catapult centres—we are rewarding innovation that ensures that businesses operate with lower overheads.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

11. What his policy is on the national minimum wage.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

15. What his policy is on the national minimum wage.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

Our aim is to maximise the wages of the low paid without damaging their employment prospects. We fully support the work of the independent Low Pay Commission in framing the pay rate recommendations for 2014. I have also asked it to consider the conditions that would be needed for faster, above inflation, increases in the national minimum wage.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of his support for raising the national minimum wage, which would be of huge benefit to the lowest paid in Burton and Uttoxeter, and across the country. Does the Secretary of State accept that it would also place extra costs on business, particularly on small business? Will he consider what could be done to reduce business taxes and regulatory burdens to help those businesses pay for an increase in the minimum wage?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, of course we are conscious of the extra cost that would fall on business. That is why the Low Pay Commission tries to make a balanced judgment between the impact on employment and the increase in earnings for workers. It must be left to make its judgments and its independence must be respected. On the tax implications, given that the Chancellor is now heavily involved in this proposal and supportive of it, I am sure that he will be helpful on that front as well.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Some 14 million people are on the minimum wage, most of whom work in retail, hospitality or cleaning. They earn just over £12,000 a year and are hard-working people. It is rightly the ambition of the coalition to make work pay more than benefit. Does my right hon. Friend imagine that anyone thinks that an above-inflation increase in the minimum wage would not pay for itself and should not be available to help those who are working hard?

[Vince Cable]

My right hon. Friend reflects the thinking that framed the advice I gave to the Low Pay Commission. Indeed, such thinking is not merely attractive in that it gives an incentive for people to work and improve their earnings, but it has positive implications for public finances.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Government would have us believe that they are now great supporters of the national minimum wage, yet we know that many sitting on the Government Benches today voted against it in 1997. If the national minimum wage is so important to the coalition, why have the Government allowed its value to fall by 5% since the election?

[Vince Cable]

The real value of the minimum wage started to fall under my predecessors in the wake of the financial crisis, and on each occasion, I, like my Labour predecessor, have followed the advice of the Low Pay Commission. The levels that have been set reflect that independent advice.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

13. What recent estimate he has made of the number of female entrepreneurs.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

There are now a record 4.9 million businesses in the UK, and we estimate that 880,000 of them are led by women, which is 18% of the total. That demonstrates the opportunity for this country, should we manage to get that proportion up.

[Lyn Brown]

Evidence shows that companies with more women in positions of power outperform their rivals. Does the Minister agree that we cannot afford not to make progress in securing more women in positions of power? If so, what will he do about it if companies do not hear him asking them nicely?

[Matthew Hancock]

I, too, have seen the research showing that companies with women at the top tend to perform better than those that have only men. That balance in the boardroom is vital, and I am a strong supporter of the agenda the hon. Lady promotes. More than 4,000 start-up loans have gone to women, and we are bringing in a new partner directed precisely at people who are returning to work after having children. For the bigger picture, ensuring that we have more women on boards is a campaign we are working on across the Government.

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

The start-up loans scheme has been the most monumental success, but many female entrepreneurs ask me for more focused sectoral mentoring as part of that scheme. May I encourage the Minister to promote that as he develops the scheme further?

[Matthew Hancock]

A scheme exactly like the one my hon. Friend calls for is coming his way very soon.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

16. What recent estimate he has made of the number of apprentices being paid at a rate below the apprenticeship minimum wage.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

The Government have zero tolerance for employers who break the law, which is why we have introduced a range of enhanced enforcement measures to crack down on rogue employers. HMRC prioritises apprentice enforcement cases, and the Government have overseen one of the most successful expansions of apprenticeships with around 1.5 million apprenticeship starts in England since 2010.

[Julie Hilling]

Does the Minister agree it is worrying that the proportion of apprentices who are not being paid the apprentice minimum wage has increased to more than one in four? What action is she taking to clamp down on rising non-compliance of employers with the apprentice national minimum wage, which is increasing under her watch?

[Jenny Willott]

The hon. Lady is right and the Government are also concerned about the level of non-compliance. Since 1 July, HMRC has been prioritising complaints from apprentices about non-payment of the national minimum wage, and we are ensuring that every single case is investigated. We also started an awareness campaign in November that targets schools, colleges, jobcentres and so on, so that those starting apprenticeships are aware of what they are entitled to. From 1 October the skills Minister has been writing to all apprentices starting a Government-funded scheme to ensure that they know what they are entitled to and that businesses know what they must pay, so that we reduce non-compliance.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

18. What assessment he has made of the potential for reshoring and import substitution in the UK economy.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

There is great potential for business reshoring to Britain. We surveyed manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises and found that 11% have reshored some production to the UK in the past 12 months. The Automotive Council has identified £3 billion of additional sourcing opportunities. Businesses are bringing activities back to Britain as we become a more flexible and competitive economy.

[Richard Graham]

I believe there is more we can do to help reshoring, for example by making cash contributions to regional growth funds, cutting business rates locally for manufacturers bringing back jobs and adding reshoring to the UK Trade & Investment job description. Does the Minister agree that on import substitution there is a real opportunity to encourage supply chains to get local suppliers to compete for business? For example, Gloucestershire-based ADEY Professional Heating Solutions recently gave a £1.5 million contract to Future Advanced Manufacture, business that was previously being done in China.

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are, of course, an open economy and we export and welcome companies from abroad that invest here, but we can do more to support our supply chains so that more prime manufacturers in Britain also purchase from SMEs across the country. Indeed, I remember visiting the company to which he refers. It is an excellent example of what we are talking about.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

My Department is concerned with the promotion of growth, recovery and a rebalanced economy.

[Karen Lumley]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Bee Design Consultancy, which I visited last Friday in my constituency? In the past few years, it has gone from having two employees to 19, and it now exports its skills all over the world, recently to Lamborghini in Italy. I invite him to come to Redditch to visit the company next time he is in the west midlands.

[Vince Cable]

I would be delighted to come to my hon. Friend’s constituency and share that success. It is not just about mainstream car producers, but specialists, as she describes.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talked about the importance of strengthening the national minimum wage, which Labour established in office to secure a fairer deal for workers. With that in mind, does he agree that for an employer to mislead workers into purchasing personal accident insurance, the charges for which would take workers’ pay under the minimum and the purchase of which is not necessary given employers’ own insurance cover, would be completely indefensible and possibly unlawful?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, I agree that that would be indefensible and I think it is unlawful. I have been advised that this practice has happened. The relevant body, the employment agency standards inspectorate, is investigating individual cases and will take enforcement action. If it proves to be a widespread practice, there will clearly be a case for a broadly based inquiry.

[Mr Umunna]

I asked the question because it is precisely what employment agencies employing workers on, or close to, the minimum wage appear to have been doing. I have been passed evidence that suggests Blue Arrow, Staffline, Acorn, Taskmaster, Randstad and Meridian, employment agencies employing more than 100,000 workers, have been mis-selling personal accident insurance to workers which they arguably do not need and from which those agencies have been profiteering. There is even a company, Gee 7 Group, which specialises in putting together these dubious arrangements for agencies. Further to my questions on this topic since October last year, will the Secretary of State now commit to holding a full inquiry into this shabby practice?

[Vince Cable]

I will commit to ensuring that we have proper enforcement procedure. The hon. Gentleman has listed more companies today. We will investigate them and that may well merit a more broadly based inquiry. I will say that the information he has made available, which I think has already been publicised, depends on the information that has been obtained from a whistleblower in a company. The Government’s reforms will strengthen the rights of whistleblowers and put them and others in a stronger position. The hon. Gentleman has identified a legitimate case of abuse and I recognise that we have to deal with it.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T2. Will the Minister outline the work the Government are doing to increase the number of engineers who will be needed to work in the energy sector in Suffolk and Norfolk, and to build on the excellent work being done by Lowestoft college?

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

Yes, I am a great supporter of Lowestoft college, which it was a pleasure to visit last year with my hon. Friend. It has a centre for the promotion of engineering and training in the offshore industry, which is so important to the town, and I will do everything I can to support it.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

T4. Blacklisting is a scourge of any civilised society. Will the Secretary of State guarantee to the House that the confidential documents currently being withheld by the Government relating to the Shrewsbury 24 dispute in 1973 do not include extensive details relating to individuals who have been blacklisted and the companies operating this very sharp practice?

[Vince Cable]

We have debated this issue in the House before—I think the hon. Gentleman spoke on it, and I responded—and we take it very seriously. I have had conversations with the Information Commissioner to ensure that the injustices of the past are properly dealt with, and as I have said to the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition spokesman, if Members have more concrete evidence that has not been properly investigated, they should bring it directly to me.

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

T3. Suppliers to top-tier Government contractors still complain that payments made under the prompt payment code are not forthcoming. What more can the Government do to improve the situation and release billions of pounds back into the economy to support our long-term economic plan?

[Matthew Hancock]

The problems of people failing either to make prompt payments or to honour payment terms—two related, but slightly different points—need to be addressed. They are largely problems that negatively affect small companies, and we are currently consulting on how radical we need to be to get the balance right and address them.

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

T7. Will the Secretary of State confirm that business investment has flatlined over the last year and that this is one of the major causes of Britain’s worsening productivity problem? What are he and the Government going to do about it?

[Vince Cable]

As everybody acknowledges, business investment has been badly hit since the financial crisis, but with the economy rapidly recovering, I think we all expect—and the surveys suggest—that there will be a movement forward in terms of business investment, once capacity has been fully utilised.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T5. The number of students coming from India has dropped by 25% since the new restrictions were introduced, which means we have fallen below the United States as destination of choice. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that we attract the brightest and the best to our universities for the best education in the world?

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

There are of course no caps on the number of legitimate, properly qualified students who can come to study in Britain, and I take every opportunity to visit India, as does the Prime Minister, to communicate that message there. Properly qualified Indian students are welcome here.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T8. The Financial Times this morning quotes a Treasury spokesman as saying that an interest rate rise is “not something we are worried about” and a “sign of success”. Does the Secretary of State concur with that view?

[Vince Cable]

Fortunately, my many responsibilities do not include the setting of interest rates. I am happy to leave that to the Governor of the Bank of England, who has made an admirable impression.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

T6. Did the science Minister hear the excellent Radio 4 programme about Malvern’s cyber-security hub, and will he clear his diary to come and open the private sector-led national cyber-skills centre in Malvern?

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is a great advocate for the Malvern cyber-security hub, and I do indeed very much hope to visit it. I am sure it is well worth a visit.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

T9. Is the Secretary of State aware that all the new oil and gas platform construction projects for this year have been either cancelled or postponed, which will have a devastating effect on employment in my constituency and others in the north-east, as well as those in Scotland? Will he, together with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, take immediate steps to address this matter?

[Vince Cable]

There is an enormous amount of investment in the North sea—about £13 billion last year, which was a big increase. One of my and my colleagues’ objectives, through the industrial strategy, is to ensure that as much of the supply chain as possible originates in the UK, and we are working with the industry on that. I frequently meet oil companies and fabricators to try to progress that.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I wholly support the Government’s move to increase the education leaving age to 18, but while the Department for Education budget is protected, the further education budget, which comes under the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and which will now be educating far more people up to 18 than schools, is not. This will put a huge strain on FE budgets. Will the responsible BIS Minister talk to the Secretary of State for Education to ask for assistance?

[Matthew Hancock]

I frequently talk to the Secretary of State for Education. The change to funding for 18 year olds was not one made lightly; dealing with the deficit requires difficult decisions. We published the impact assessment on the consequences, which show that disadvantaged students are not affected disproportionately. If we did not have a budget deficit of £100 billion, life would undoubtedly be easier.

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

Queen Victoria was on the throne when the Dunlop Motorsport factory first produced wooden wheels and then rubber tyres in Erdington. Now, 125 years of history and 300 highly skilled jobs are at risk. Jaguar Land Rover needs the land for its welcome expansion. Birmingham city council has identified an alternative site about three miles away. But the global board, based in Ohio, has yet to commit to Birmingham and Britain—with only nine months left before the lease runs out. In thanking the Secretary of State for the welcome steps he has already taken, may I ask whether he will convene a top-level meeting with Goodyear Dunlop, involving both him and me, so that we can get a decision made that a great piece of our manufacturing history remains part of a great manufacturing future in this country?

[Vince Cable]

I am well aware of this issue and its importance to British manufacturing, and, indeed, to Birmingham. I would be happy, as I am sure would the Minister of State, to meet the key people in order to make sure that we get the right decision.

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

Given the enthusiasm of both the public and employees for buying shares in Royal Mail, will the Secretary of State look at what other assets in the public sector could be successfully transferred to the private sector?

[Vince Cable]

Asset sales are an important part of Government economic policy. They have been very successful in raising cash and enabling the Government to invest more than would otherwise be the case. We approach this on a practical basis, aiming to get value for money for the taxpayer.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State update us on his latest decision on article 7 of the proposed EU consumer products safety regulations on origin marking, which, if agreed, would mean that quality ceramics made in Stoke-on-Trent would be labelled “Made in the UK”? Is it not time that we put an end to misleading consumer product marking?

[Vince Cable]

I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues from the potteries who have been to see me about this specific issue. Apparently, there was a meeting of what I think is called COREPER on Monday, but no agreement was reached. There is a divided view on the role of mandatory regulation to deal with this problem. I take a close interest in this matter, and I will follow it up.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

For the 150,000 posties who are now shareholders in Royal Mail, will the Secretary of State or the Post Office Minister tell us what the average value of their individual shareholdings was at flotation and what their average value is now?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

It has undoubtedly increased, and we should all welcome that, particularly the commitment of Royal Mail employees to the future success of the company. Perhaps I shall write to my hon. Friend with the exact information he requests.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Minister confirmed just a few minutes ago that women who become pregnant can and do face discrimination at work. Why, then, are the Government going to charge those women £1,200 to go to an industrial tribunal?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

I am disappointed that this figure is being bandied around yet again. It does not cost women more than £1,000 to go to a tribunal. It costs only £250 to start a claim, and most cases are finalised well before a hearing. For those who end up going to a hearing, fee remission applies in many cases, and if the women win their case, costs are often awarded against their former employers. It does not cost what the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is scaremongering by Labour Members, and I am concerned that this will put women off taking cases against their employers when they have been unfairly discriminated against.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On the Secretary of State’s undoubtedly enjoyable trip to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley), will he break his journey in Wellingborough so that I can show him the success of local businesses? More importantly, this would not cost the taxpayer a penny because both Wellingborough council and East Northamptonshire council have free car parking, which encourages local business. If possible, I look forward to seeing him soon.

[Vince Cable]

I should be delighted to go to Wellingborough. Indeed, I should like to make the visit a political one as well, and, on behalf of my Department, to express my appreciation of someone who has given so much support to the coalition. [Laughter.]

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Last year, Sheffield Hallam university received £6.9 million as part of its share of the student opportunity fund. That not only helped it to recruit 30% of its undergraduate intake from low-income households—a commendable achievement—but to engage in critical retention work with the most disadvantaged learners. Yesterday, in the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Secretary of State agreed with me that the fund’s work would be damaged if its resources were cut. Can the Minister reassure the House that that will not happen?

[Mr Willetts]

We certainly understand the value of the work of the student opportunity fund. Indeed, I have visited Sheffield Hallam university and have seen the excellent work that it does.

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

As the Prime Minister’s recent excellent trip to China has shown, there are phenomenal opportunities for Britain to trade with the Chinese. May I urge the Department to continue to lobby for the simplification of visas for Chinese visitors and entrepreneurs?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, and we will do so. I understand that my colleague the Home Secretary has already introduced a revamped system which is much faster and which gives those who have secured British visas speedy access to the Schengen countries. We are very conscious of the importance of Chinese visitors, and we will do our best to make it clear that they are welcome.

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

Two able pupils at a Hackney secondary school in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency have been offered a place at a good university on condition that they secure two As and a B in their A-levels. The university is willing to negotiate on those grades, but will not discuss their C grades in GCSE maths: they will need B grades. If they were foreign students, they would be given coaching by the university. Will the Minister meet me, and some of the people in Hackney who are concerned about the matter, to discuss how we can tackle it and ensure that there is proper social mobility in this country?

[Mr Willetts]

I should be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the matter, but let me make two things clear. First, universities decide their own admissions criteria, which is right, and secondly, as we increase the number of students and remove artificial caps, it will be possible for universities to recruit all the students who are qualified to benefit from going to university.

Petition

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present a Rural Fair Share petition on behalf of hundreds of my constituents and supported also by a further 590 online signatures gathered through my website. The East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire contain not only the finest people, but two very well-performing councils that are sadly underfunded. Before I read out the petition, I want to thank Hatty’s teashop in Epworth and Rob McArthur at Snaith chippy, who, while people were buying their pattie and chips, encouraged them to sign the petition.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Brigg and Goole constituency,

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

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

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001316]

Business of the House

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

10:32

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 27 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by a general debate on the law on dangerous driving. The subject of the general debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 28 January—Second Reading of the Consumer Rights Bill.

Wednesday 29 January—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on the UNHCR Syrian refugee programme, followed by a debate on teacher qualifications. Both debates will arise on an official Opposition motion, and will be followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 30 January—Remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will include the following:

Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Deregulation Bill.

Tuesday 4 February—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 5 February—Opposition Day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.

Thursday 6 February—A general debate on Scotland’s place in the UK, followed by a general debate on international wildlife crime. The subjects of both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

I should also inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 30 January and 6 February will be as follows:

Thursday 30 January—A debate on the manifesto “The 1001 Critical Days” and early childhood development.

Thursday 6 February—A debate on the third report of the Communities and Local Government Committee, “Community Budgets”, and the Government’s response, followed by a debate on fire sprinkler week.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing yet another agenda that is jam-packed with thrilling Government business. I wonder what on earth he will do with all the endless spare time when the Backbench Business Committee has used up its allocation of 35 days.

I note that the elusive Immigration Bill has made a sudden and dramatic reappearance this morning. After nine weeks of radio silence, we now have an eleventh-hour change to Government business, which The Spectator seems to have managed to find out about before anyone else. I know the Leader of the House is an expert at pausing and rewriting Bills, so the House could be forgiven for thinking the Immigration Bill will look very different when it finally reappears in the Chamber next week. I hear that rebel amendments are already being tabled, and the Government’s highly unusual decision to table the Bill on a Thursday means a maximum of only four and a half hours will be available for that crucial debate. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is the case, and tell us whether the amendments mean that they have done a behind-the-scenes deal with their rebels? Will he also guarantee that Labour’s important amendments and new clauses on private landlords, on the minimum wage and on abolition of appeals tribunals will have time to be heard in that shortened debate?

Last week the Leader of the House refused to rule out scheduling the Queen’s Speech during pre-election purdah, giving the impression that the Government are still considering ignoring conventions and politicising the Queen’s Speech. Is the Leader of the House finally willing to rule that out, or is there another reason for him being so coy? Some reports have suggested the state opening might be delayed until well into June because the coalition parties have no idea what their legislative programme will be for the final year of this Parliament. Could the Leader of the House tell us what is actually going on? Does he now regret the Government’s rush to legislate for a five-year Parliament, and why did the Government settle on five years as the appropriate length for a fixed term given that it is obvious that they have nothing to do in the final year but fight and fall out?

This feels increasingly like a zombie Government marking time to the next general election. We all know this coalition of convenience is heading rapidly towards an inevitable and messy divorce. After all if they are not fighting each other, they are fighting among themselves. Last week 95 Tory Back Benchers signed a letter demanding that the Prime Minister deliver an impossible veto on all EU legislation. This week they were denounced as “thick” by an unnamed Tory Minister, and The Times claimed to have uncovered a fifth column of Tory MPs who want the Prime Minister to lose the election. On top of that, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), a Treasury Minister, complained that the Tory message was far too negative, confirming what we all know already: the nasty party is well and truly back.

By comparison, the Liberal Democrats have been having a quiet time. The Deputy Prime Minister has been denounced by one of his most eminent colleagues for acting like a mixture of Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell and North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-un rolled into one, and Liberal Democrat peers seem to think the party is in need of a truth and reconciliation process similar to that used in post-apartheid South Africa. It is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has no authority over his own party, so can we have a debate on whether he is capable of helping to run the country?

Not only have this Government run out of ideas for future business, they are running out of ways of hiding their record, too. This week alone we have learned that they are sitting on a report on EU migration because it does not support the nasty caricatures demanded by Lynton Crosby to fit in with his nasty election campaign plans. We have had to correct their misleading figures on flood defence spending. The crime figures have lost their kite mark because they cannot be trusted. This morning the National Audit Office has said the NHS waiting list figures cannot be trusted either, and there is still no sign of the reports on food banks, on garden cities and the risk assessment for Help to Buy. This Government have been ticked off for fiddling the figures more times than the Chancellor has had to amend his plans to balance the books. They have sat on more reports than the Liberal Democrats have sat on fences, and they have flip-flopped so many times that I keep thinking summer has come early—although if I listen to UKIP’s flood warnings I now realise why summer will never come for me.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader for her response. I am sure that the sun shines in many places in this country, contrary to the views of at least one member of UKIP.

It is curious—the shadow Leader asked me last week and the week before to bring forward the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill; this week I have done it and she complains. We are just bringing forward Government business. I explained previously that we have been dealing with other Bills and now we are proceeding with the Immigration Bill. I am afraid she chose rather a bad day to make a speech written in advance saying that the Government lacked ideas for future business when today we are publishing the Consumer Rights Bill and the Deregulation Bill and I have announced that we will debate those two Bills and the Immigration Bill next week. I am afraid that her prior argument has been thoroughly disproved.

The hon. Lady asked about the Queen’s Speech—

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

What about the rebel amendments?

[Mr Lansley]

I thought I had answered the point on the Immigration Bill. We have a running commentary from the silent one. Sometimes on days when we have remaining stages we lose time as a consequence of urgent questions or statements, but we will endeavour to do whatever we can to avoid any additional statements beyond the business question next Thursday. Of course, there will be opportunity through the usual channels to discuss the timing of debates. As the Opposition will know, we always attempt to ensure that subjects can be debated properly.

I told the shadow Leader of the House last week that last year I announced the date of the Queen’s Speech on 7 March. We are still in January; we are before the point at which on recent precedent the date of the Queen’s Speech is announced. When I can, I will tell the House the date of the Queen’s Speech. All this speculation is literally nothing more than that.

The shadow Leader of the House will understand that I will not comment on her points about the Liberal Democrats. I do not know whether she was commending Thomas Cromwell. Having read “Wolf Hall” and “Bring Up the Bodies”, we have not reached the point yet at which Thomas Cromwell became the Lord Privy Seal and, speaking as the Lord Privy Seal, I am quite looking forward to that moment for a little potential guidance. It might give me some forewarning of the point at which I might be the subject of what we might term my own Henry VIII clause.

The shadow Leader of the House did not tell us anything much about the recent good news. She might have asked me for a debate on some of the forecasting issues. It is quite interesting. We have heard the IMF forecast that Britain will be the fastest-growing major European economy this year. The OECD forecasts likewise. Business confidence, according to a Lloyds TSB survey this month, has reached its strongest level since January 1994. British Chambers of Commerce referred to manufacturing confidence and intentions being at their highest for several years. This week we had the unemployment data: unemployment is down to 7.1%, down 0.8 points since the election. The employment level is above 30 million. It would have been interesting for the shadow Leader of the House at least to have suggested a debate about forecasting since it contrasts with the forecast of the Leader of the Opposition that our economic plan would lead to the disappearance of a million jobs. On the contrary, we can see that it has led to the success of our economic plan and of enterprise in this country.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about crime stats and NHS waiting data. The crime stats this morning show that crime levels are down to the lowest level for 32 years. The shadow Leader knows perfectly well that in addition to those crime statistics, the British crime survey shows a similar substantial reduction in crime, which shows that our police reforms are working and crime is falling. As for NHS waiting times, she will recall that at the time of the last election 18,458 people had waited over a year for their treatment. Now that number has come down to 218. We have dealt with the people who are waiting the longest. We have reduced by 35,000 the number waiting beyond 18 weeks, and the average time that people wait is still low and stable.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Secretary of State for Transport has not made a statement today on the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment relating to HS2, which many people will find surprising. An important aspect of that judgment pertains to the legislative supremacy of Parliament, which is being carefully examined at the moment. In that context, will the Leader of the House consider giving time to my own Bill, the United Kingdom Parliament (Sovereignty) Bill, in order to resolve those questions?

[Mr Lansley]

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on those cases yesterday. It found unanimously in favour of the Government and rejected the challenges to HS2, both in relation to the strategic environmental assessment directive and on the question whether the Bill process breached the environmental impact assessment directive. So the Government won both those cases.

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

Given that next week’s Back-Bench business has been moved at extremely short notice, will the Leader of the House work closely with the Members affected to ensure that their debates can take place as soon as possible, and perhaps look into giving them time on a day other than a Thursday as compensation?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very happy to discuss that matter further with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, although I am sure she is aware that we have made a day available for Back-Bench business each week recently. We are also increasingly adopting the approach of trying to identify occasions on which there is scope for holding a Back-Bench-led debate on other days in the week, even though it is not the principal business on that day. That has been quite successful in recent weeks.

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

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recently reported on rural communities and highlighted the importance of bus travel in those areas. May we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on any legislative changes that might be required to allow bus travellers—especially concessionary fare travellers—in rural areas to contribute to the cost of their bus service rather than losing it completely following the withdrawal of the bus subsidy?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer an immediate opportunity for a debate on that subject, although I recognise that it is an important one. We have recently had a more general debate on rural communities, in which my hon. Friend was involved. I will none the less raise the issue with my colleagues at the Department for Transport, in the hope that they will be able to discuss it further with her.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Many people were shocked by the recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which showed that the majority of the people living in poverty in Britain were in working families—6.7 million people. Is it not time we had a debate on the need for real action on low pay, as Labour is proposing, given that, under this Government, employment no longer appears to be a route out of poverty?

[Mr Lansley]

I think we all agree that the principal route out of poverty is through work. The number of workless households has gone down to its lowest ever level, and the number of people in work is now above 30 million. People who are in work but low paid are increasingly seeing their tax burden coming down, because the personal tax allowance is now taking some 3 million people out of tax altogether.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know of the importance of rural broadband. May we have a debate on that issue? Also, does he share my surprise that Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council has rejected the Government’s proposed co-funding for broadband in the area, given that Conservative-led Shropshire council has embraced it, helping local residents and businesses?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely concur with my hon. Friend on the importance of rural broadband, and I am surprised by what he says about the attitude of Telford and Wrekin council. In my own constituency and elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, the Connecting Cambridgeshire campaign has a contract and is aiming for 98% superfast broadband coverage by the end of 2015 or early 2016. Such coverage is tremendously important in rural areas, particularly for supporting the new enterprises that are setting up there.

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

Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House to make a statement on when the Government would publish their report on food banks. Given the fact that it has still not been published, may we have an urgent statement to tell us when the report will be made public?

[Mr Lansley]

I confess that I do not have a publication date, but I will, of course, speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and if he can update the House, I am sure he will.

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

May we have a debate on the housing targets used by local authorities? The housing targets used by Leeds city council are being challenged, including by Dr Rachael Unsworth at Leeds university and Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development. May we debate whether the targets are accurate before we see huge swathes of north Leeds and Wharfedale being built on?

[Mr Lansley]

What my hon. Friend says is interesting. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to look at it. One of the essential things for local authorities to do, as part of the national planning policy framework, is to ensure that they meet five years’ demand for housing in their areas. So what that demand is and what the targets ought to be are important questions, but of course, they can be challenged on appeal to the inspectorate if someone thinks that a local plan is inaccurate.

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

Just before the Offender Rehabilitation Bill was considered on Report, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), met the Liberal Democrat group and warned them not to vote for any piloting of the procedures because they were too far advanced. At the end of last week, he slipped out a written statement to say that the timeline has been set back two months. May we now have a debate in Government time on the Government’s lack of candour and complete incompetence with regard to the Bill?

[Mr Lansley]

The House has just debated the Offender Rehabilitation Bill and these issues were discussed. My recollection is that, in particular, the issue was not a lack of time, but that the related piloting—for example, in Peterborough—has illustrated the benefits of the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time in the programme for a discussion on provision for young people with dyslexia? The Government have gone a long way, and we are publishing a new code of practice, but the issue is how things are working in schools and getting early intervention to help those with dyslexia to be able to perform adequately in schools.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these are important issues. Indeed, there are often opportunities—I hope that they will continue—through the Backbench Business Committee to discuss them. Of course, in the wider sense for children with special educational needs, the Children and Families Bill contains important new provisions. It is in the House of Lords now, so to that extent, we have debated it here. Some amendments might come from the House of Lords in due course that will afford an opportunity to debate some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises, and I hope that he has that chance.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the complete failure of Capita in relation to personal independence payments? Many people have been waiting six or seven months for their assessments to get from Capita to the Department for Work and Pensions. The DWP helpline for MPs is in despair. The Capita website, contact e-mail and telephone numbers do not respond. What is happening to desperately ill people is awful. The Secretary of State has said that his policies are about changing lives, not just saving money. They are changing lives, but not for the better, and he is certainly saving a lot of money from desperately ill people.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer an immediate debate on that, and the hon. Lady will know that questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are—

[Mrs Moon]

I asked a question during DWP questions.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, exactly. Therefore, the next questions are some way off. To be as helpful as I can to the hon. Lady, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to address her specifically on the points that she raises.

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

Yesterday, we had a debate in Westminster Hall about the situation in Somerset. People are now looking at setting up gold command, which is one stage below a major incident. Surely, the time has come to have a debate in the House on the Environment Agency and flooding throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot go on, year on year, having a situation where emergency services are stretched and local councils are getting more stretched, yet we cannot get them to dredge rivers and live up to the job that they should be doing.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly raised this issue last week, and I was glad that the business gave him the opportunity to raise it in Westminster Hall, as he says. I cannot offer him an immediate prospect of a debate, but I know that we will discuss this matter with the Backbench Business Committee, because, as I said last week, Members from across the House will want to debate it in the light of the exceptional weather conditions. I should say that in many cases they will want to do so not least to express their appreciation of the success of the Environment Agency and emergency services, as well as to identify where more needs to be done.

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

May we have a debate in Government time on the operation of, and criteria for inclusion in, the rural fuel rebate scheme, because, amazingly, despite Northern Ireland having the highest petrol and diesel prices in the UK—prices are the highest in Europe in some parts of the Province—no part of Northern Ireland qualifies under the scheme? It would be worth exploring that, if the Leader of the House could see his way to having a debate on the matter.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately promise a debate, but the right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting issue. I know that my Treasury colleagues will always be willing to discuss it with him, and I will encourage them to respond to him on that subject.

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

As the number of people in employment rises and the number of claimants falls—such progress has been made in my constituency that it now has just 95 young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance—may we have a debate about how we further target the benefits system to support people in getting back into work?

[Mr Lansley]

I would welcome such a debate, and my hon. Friend is right to seek one. It would give us an opportunity to examine how the Work programme has, according to industry figures, brought 444,000 people into work; to look at how the youth claimant count has been reduced by 114,000 since the election; and to celebrate the one and two-thirds million more private sector jobs created in this country since the last election.

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

We warned what the consequences would be of cutting more than 10,000 front-line police officers. Today’s figures show that theft was up in 24 of the 43 force areas, shoplifting was up in 28 and sexual crime was up in 40. Given those disturbing trends, taken together with today’s revelations that last year half a million crimes were screened out and not even investigated, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the growing consequences of the Government’s actions, as the thin blue line is stretched ever thinner?

[Mr Lansley]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is just in denial, as his party so often is on so many subjects. Both the crime statistics and the crime survey show that crime has fallen by more than 10% under this Government, which makes us the safest we have been for decades. It shows that the Government’s reforms are working and that police forces are rising to the challenge of delivering savings while reducing crime.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Empire, Golcar, Hand Drawn Monkey, Magic Rock, Milltown, Nook, Riverhead and Summer Wine are all microbreweries in my constituency. They employ dozens of people, and export to Australia and eastern Europe. We had a debate earlier this week on pubcos, but may we please have a debate on the role that microbreweries are playing in our booming food and drink exports?

[Mr Lansley]

It would be a joy to have a further debate; it seems that the Opposition day debate on pubcos the other day, for which we are grateful, has not assuaged the thirst for such discussion in this House. My hon. Friend makes a good point, because microbreweries are doing a fantastic thing in bringing innovation into an industry and really responding to customer preference. It is now such a joy for beer drinkers as compared with the time when I was but a lad; I recall taking Watneys Red Barrel to a party, but that was a day in the past.

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

I very much welcome today’s short Backbench Business Committee debate on Holocaust memorial day. However, given continuing holocaust denial and increasing anti-Semitic discourse, including the Anelka incident, may we have a debate on these issues in Government time?

[Mr Lansley]

The House is grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling a debate this afternoon. As I said last week, the recent European report highlighting the number of anti-Semitic incidents across Europe does give rise for concern, and it is something that we should continue to debate. However, although one incident is one too many, we can take some comfort from the fact that there is a relatively low number of such incidents in this country. That means that communities here can feel relatively confident compared with those in other European countries.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I have been contacted by several constituents who were the victims of theft, so will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on whether the Government will consider the introduction of digital monitoring of blue badges as part of a drive to tackle misuse and assist genuine users?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will recall that the Disabled Persons' Parking Badges Act 2013, which was piloted through this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), secured its Royal Assent about this time last year. The reforms to the blue badge scheme are now delivering some comprehensive changes, which will include a national shared database of all blue badge holders. That will enable enforcement officers anywhere in the country to use handheld devices to check badge details in real time against that nationwide database. I hope that will help in the issues my hon. Friend raises.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Now that both coalition parties are in favour of new nuclear and offshore wind, may we have a debate in Government time on transmission and the national grid, so that the new connections can be looked at fairly and objectively when we are considering subsea, underground and overground proposals? That is a serious issue to which the Government have not given much time or attention.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, it is an important matter. It should be noted that this Government are now making progress on the new nuclear build. About 10 years ago, the Trade and Industry Committee, of which I was a member, asked the previous Government for such a debate, but it did not happen. They kept saying then that they were keeping the door open, but skills, opportunity and investment were leaving the country. Now they are coming back. It is an important matter, especially at Wylfa in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I will, if I may, discuss it with my colleagues. Of course the grid and planning are partly an issue for the Welsh Assembly Government as well. None the less, I will raise it because I know how important it is to his constituents.

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

May we have a debate on the state of Britain’s roads because they appear to be getting worse, especially in Lancashire and the Ribble Valley? Annually, local authorities pay £30 million in compensation to motorists, so motorists themselves end up paying £2.8 billion in repairs because of the number of potholes and craters in the roads. A debate would enable us to focus on how much money is spent on the roads and to ensure that the money is spent equally in counties such as Lancashire, including in rural areas such as the Ribble Valley.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows that this Government have made available additional resources to assist highways authorities to deal with potholes, and I hope that that is making a difference. None the less, it is a constant effort, not least because of some of the exceptional weather conditions we have experienced this winter and the previous one.

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

The Leader of the House may recall that during the recent industrial dispute at the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, the Prime Minister, from the Dispatch Box, described as a rogue the then Unite union convenor, Stevie Dean. Since then, and following a police investigation, Mr Dean has been cleared of all the allegations levelled against him. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to come back to the Dispatch Box and apologise to Mr Dean and his family?

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps in the first instance the Labour party would like to publish its own internal report relating to the events in Falkirk and then we will see where we go from there.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Tomorrow, stakeholders from across the south-west are meeting to discuss once again the future of the A303. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a statement to confirm that the work will expedite a solution as quickly as possible, take advantage of the studies that have been undertaken over the past 20 years and ensure that Stonehenge and the stretch of the A303 around it will not be forgotten or decoupled from the work?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter with me again. As he says, a meeting is due to take place tomorrow with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to consider the issue. I can tell him—I will ask my colleagues to follow up on this with him and other interested Members—that we recognise the need to find solutions to the issues on the A303/A30/A358 corridor. We commit to identifying and funding solutions in the future and to ensure that we build on previous and recent work, including that done by Somerset county council and others, rather than starting from scratch.

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

Earlier this year, my local former Scottish National party MSP, Mr Bill Walker, was convicted of 23 counts of domestic abuse and one charge of breaking a frying pan over his stepdaughter’s head. He was sentenced to the maximum sentence available, which was only one year, so the Scottish Parliament did not have the power automatically to expel him. Will the Leader of the House ask the Cabinet Office to consider the outdated rule that someone must have a jail sentence of one year and one day before they can be disqualified from this place or any of the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments?

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, these are matters for me. As regards this House, I would want to proceed on the basis of an understanding of consensus and I will be glad to discuss the question with colleagues, the shadow Leader of the House and others. In this House, we have already seen—I hope that this would be reflected in other Parliaments—that when Members are convicted of serious offences, even if they have not necessarily been given a sentence of more than 12 months, they have either resigned from the House or action has been taken against them on a recommendation from the Standards Committee.

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

Wolverhampton central youth theatre is one of many organisations that will have its funding cut if Wolverhampton council moves £1.6 million from the voluntary sector budget. Given that last night Wolverhampton council deferred the decision, may we use this pause to have a debate on the importance of voluntary sector organisations and wider civil society?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point for his constituents, but there is a general point, too. In many cases, local authorities are making effective decisions about how they can reduce costs, increase efficiencies and maintain services for their public, but they should never take the easy route out. They should always look for the opportunity to reduce their costs while maintaining their ability to support the services and expenditure that are of most importance to their constituents.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

There was a deeply disturbing report on the “Today” programme this morning concerning Oakwood prison in Staffordshire, the largest prison in the UK. In my constituency of Wrexham, an even bigger prison is planned by the Government but many major decisions concerning it have not yet been made. May we please have a debate so that we can consider prison capacity and the effectiveness of Oakwood prison and so that we know what the Government have planned for my constituency?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports the decision made by this Government to establish a large new prison in Wrexham. On the specific question of HMP Oakwood, he knows that the incident there was resolved successfully in the early hours of 6 January. I cannot comment further on that particular issue, but he will know from what my colleagues have said that large category C prisons elsewhere in the prison estate often operate very successfully. The number and type of incidents Oakwood has experienced over the past six months are not notably different from those experienced by other such prisons.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Tomorrow, as the Leader of the House travels to Corby to support the excellent Conservative candidate, Tom Pursglove, he will have to drive through my constituency. As he does, will he reflect on the fact that when Labour left power 2,757 people were unemployed and now fewer than 2,000 are unemployed? Would it be possible to ensure that there is not a debate on the economy next week so that the Opposition are not embarrassed?

[Mr Lansley]

I often drive through my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I look forward to doing so to visit Corby in east Northamptonshire tomorrow evening. Of course, the Opposition had an Opposition day available to them next week but chose not to debate the recent economic good news, so, as he correctly observes, they are not willing or keen to be embarrassed.

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

May we have a statement on what plans the Government have to support the north-east economy, in particular? Yesterday we saw that the north-east still has the highest level of unemployment in the country, with too many young people out of work and rising levels of long-term unemployment. I wish Portsmouth well, but who in Government is going to get to grips with the challenge that we face in the north-east?

[Hon. Members]

They do not care.

[Mr Lansley]

I hear the sedentary comments from the Opposition. Let me make it absolutely clear that we do care. That is why we are pursuing a long-term economic plan which, among its many benefits, is getting many more people into work, with 1.68 million private sector jobs. We were left with an enormous deficit and we have had to deal with that. We said at the outset that that would necessitate a reduction in public sector jobs. Labour Members and the Leader of the Opposition said, “It will never happen. Jobs will be lost in the public sector but the private sector could not possibly create equivalent numbers of jobs.” There are now four private sector jobs for every public sector job lost. The hon. Lady and other north-east MPs should be on their feet extolling the successes in the north-east. This week, Nissan, with a new Qashqai model coming off its production lines, is a fantastic example of the potential in this country and in the north-east to produce world-beating manufacturing.

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

Many local residents and members of Medway council have raised concerns about the proposed closure of A block, based at Medway hospital and run by Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, which provides in-patient mental health care facilities. I know that the Government have done a lot on the provision of mental health care facilities across the country, but may I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on such provision across the country, looking at levels of in-patient and community-based treatment?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend asks his question at a good moment, not least because earlier this week my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister published the Government’s update of the mental health strategy, with some important further commitments on the availability of mental health services, especially the ability for services to become more seamless at the point at which young people are treated as adults, which makes a big difference. My hon. Friend raises an important local point. When the Secretary of State for Health decided on 20 November last year to support the Independent Reconfiguration Panel’s recommendation, he made it clear that the matter should be allowed to proceed as soon as possible. Knowing my hon. Friend’s local hospitals, I think that, for example, there is a very good in-patient unit at Darent Valley. I hope his constituents will appreciate that there continue to be high-quality in-patient services locally.

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

Today The Daily Telegraph reports the plight of my former constituent, Mrs Afsana Lachaux, who is stranded in Dubai having being abused by her former husband and who is now threatened with jail by the Dubai police and authorities. I have bid for an Adjournment debate on this matter, and I am seeking a meeting with the relevant Minister at the Foreign Office. In the interim, may we have a statement from the Foreign Office on the outcome of the representations that have been made by our consular officials in Dubai to Foreign Office staff?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman might have some success in his quest for a debate, because this is clearly a distressing matter for his constituents and their friends and families. I will of course talk to my ministerial colleague at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will be in contact with the hon. Gentleman. I hope, too, that if there are wider issues the Minister will take whatever opportunity he can to update the House.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Farmers in Staffordshire and other parts of the country who have seen their pedigree herds slaughtered as a result of bovine TB face a double loss: the loss of their herds, into which they put so much effort, and a loss of compensation, because they are compensated at an average level. May we have a debate on fair compensation for farmers who lose their cattle as a result of this terrible disease?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that we are doing everything we can to try to reduce the high incidence of bovine TB. This is a very important issue and whenever we debate the mechanisms of the badger cull we should never forget that it meets a very important purpose. I understand my hon. Friend’s point about compensation. I will raise it with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ask him to respond to my hon. Friend.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

For some time I have been working with the pensions Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—and the Yorkshire Post to bring about a satisfactory conclusion to the Carrington Wire pension fund saga, which affects hundreds of pensioners in Yorkshire, including in my constituency. The case is important because it represents the way in which the Government protect UK pension holders. I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that our laws and regulations properly protect the public, but the longer this particular matter takes to be resolved, the less likely that appears to be the case. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we get the opportunity to debate the matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, talk to my hon. Friend the pensions Minister so that he can update me. I cannot promise a debate, but I will, of course, make sure that if there is anything we can do to assist in the matter that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised, we will try to do so.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Could we have a long debate in Government time on jobs and growth? It would allow hon. Members on both sides of the House to highlight some of the remarkable statistics in the current numbers, such as the fact that workless households are at a record low, that the number of children in absolute poverty is at a record low, that the number of professional science and technical jobs are growing very fast, that long-term unemployment is coming down and, above all, that, unlike the previous Government, this Government are creating British jobs for British workers.

[Mr Lansley]

I thought that was an excellent application for a debate and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for it. Without repeating what she has rightly said is the basis for such a debate, it would, if we could find time for it, afford an opportunity to take particular note of her last point that, under the previous Government, in the five years up to the last general election the number of British people in a job dropped by 413,000, while the number of foreign workers in employment in this country went up by 736,000. By contrast, in the three years after the election, the number of British people in a job has risen by 538,000 and the number of foreign workers by 247,000. That trend is, if anything, accelerating. According to the most recent figures from 2012-13, 90% of jobs went to UK nationals, meaning 348,000 more British people in work and 26,000 additional foreign workers.

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

For more than two years I have been meeting Ministers and industry experts to look in detail at the issue of internet trolling. Just this week we have seen further evidence of the inadequate response of social media sites to online racist and misogynist abuse. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on internet trolling so that Parliament can send a message to Facebook, Twitter and others that we are watching what they are doing and that thus far we are not impressed?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot immediately offer a debate, but a lot of people have rightly been concerned about the character of internet trolling. I will, if I may, talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The House has had some opportunities to discuss the issue. We have focused in the past on the danger to and exploitation of children, but there are wider issues such as balancing freedom of speech with the general legal basis on which people have a right not to be abused.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 974?

[That this House recognises that Harlow Mecca Bingo is one of the biggest bingo clubs in the country, with 54,000 members; notes that their staff are second-to-none; further notes that Harlow Mecca Bingo provides an important role in Harlow’s community; acknowledges that despite being recognised as a soft form of gambling that plays an important social role within many local communities in the UK, bingo is subject to a gross profits tax of 20 per cent, as opposed to the 15 per cent charged on other forms of gambling; and therefore urges the Government to reduce this tax to 15 per cent in line with other forms of gambling, to ensure that Harlow Mecca Bingo continues to have a strong future.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Harlow Mecca Bingo club has 54,000 members, that 100,000 people have walked though its doors over the past year and that it has 10,000 active members? Will he do what he can and arrange a debate on the “boost bingo” campaign, so that we can secure a future for bingo clubs such as that in Harlow and ensure that they are on a level playing field and not taxed at 20% when other forms of gambling are taxed at 15%?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have seen early-day motion 974, in which my hon. Friend makes a point about Harlow Mecca Bingo, whose fame has spread far and wide. I suspect that there are probably even people in South Cambridgeshire who go to Harlow to enjoy bingo. Before the 1997 general election, when you and I first entered the House, Mr Speaker, the Bingo Association asked me whether I wanted to call the numbers at a bingo club in my constituency. Unfortunately, there was no bingo club in my constituency, so I lost out on that one, and my hon. Friend therefore has the advantage on me. I note that the fame of Harlow Mecca Bingo is so great that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) has signed the early-day motion, so the campaign is a national one. The question of duty is of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

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

Government spokesmen now say that they intend to increase economic security for the average household. May we debate that so that I can answer my constituents who are wondering which is the better indicator— 25 people off the claimant count, or the fact that a place such as Birmingham, Selly Oak is now in the top 20% of constituencies for unemployment?

[Mr Lansley]

It is very important to give people a greater sense of security and peace of mind, and that is what we have set out to do. The fact that the number of households in which nobody is in work is at a record low makes an enormous difference. The fact that the latest data show that inflation is at 2%—it has come down to its target level—also gives people a sense of security. The fact that we are dealing with the deficit is not just some debate at a global or national level, but a practical matter: if we stick to the long-term economic plan to bring down the deficit, that will increasingly allow us to do what we have done with the money available, which is to relieve the tax burden, not least on the low-paid.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

On Monday, we had the welcome news that Harrow council and the Department for Education are conducting a feasibility study with the aim of putting a brand new Hindu free school on Whitchurch playing fields in my constituency. May we have an urgent debate on the principle of religious schools, particularly in relation to their impact on Britain, so that Britain’s 1.6 million Hindus have the right to provide an education of their choice for their children?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I wish him well with the plans that his constituents are putting together. As he will know, our view is that there is a valuable long-standing tradition of faith schools in this country, and we support the contribution that they make. They are often high-performing schools that are popular with parents, and many of them are therefore over-subscribed. Two Hindu free schools have thus far been established—the Krishna Avanti primary school in Leicester and the Avanti House school in London, which opened in 2012. I hope that this continuing trend of support for faith schools will be sustained.

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

The Leader of the House has rightly commended the work of the emergency services in tackling flooding, and I particularly draw attention to the fire service. My local firefighters are somewhat bemused that they do not have a statutory duty to attend flooding incidents. May we therefore have a debate on the implications of there being no statutory duty, so that we can ask the fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), to explain why that is still the position?

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly raise that point with the Minister with responsibility for fire services, and he may like to reply to the hon. Lady. I have to say that I do not think that fire services would generally regard themselves as in any way constrained by their statutory responsibilities in attending whenever they felt there was a public need for them to do so.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Last week, Thales UK won a £120 million export order to Indonesia, securing important aerospace jobs. That is just one example of the importance of the Government strategy to rebalance the economy by supporting manufacturing, promoting apprenticeships and exporting to high-growth countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the strategy’s most important consequences is the opportunity for young people, and that it is one of the major reasons why youth unemployment in my constituency fell by 45% during 2013? Does he agree that this is a good moment for a debate on youth unemployment to see what more we can do to maintain this encouraging momentum?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. The rate of youth unemployment is lower than at the time of the election and the youth claimant count has fallen for 19 months in a row. That is a reflection of the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan. We can see practical benefits from that plan, not least for our young people, but it is also about businesses. We should always reflect on the success of enterprise and on the hundreds of thousands of new businesses that are being established. In particular, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills made clear in questions, we must support small businesses and increase the proportion of small businesses that are exporting, particularly to the fast-growing economies around the world, because that will drive growth in the future.

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

I urge the Leader of the House to arrange an early debate on the welfare state. The welfare state in this country has provided wonderful support for tens of millions of people. It is a wonderful creation. In the light of the Channel 4 programme, “Benefits Street”, I suggest that everyone in the House reads Caitlin Moran’s article in The Times on the benefits that the great welfare state has brought to tens of millions of people as preparation for that debate. The welfare state in this country is something to be proud of, not to be derided.

[Mr Lansley]

I suggest that Members would be better advised to read the speech that is being made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. They will find that we are returning to the original intention of the welfare state, which is to encourage people to be in work and to help those who are most in need, not to create the opportunity for a lifestyle of living on benefits. People must contribute the most that they can not only to society, but to their own family by taking up the opportunities for work that the economy is creating.

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

Although I fully recognise the need to invest in flood defences, I understand that the Environment Agency put a spade in the ground two weeks ago to start work on flood defences for Exeter—a part of the world that my right hon. Friend knows well, having been to university there—which could have a significant impact on the railways from Exeter to Plymouth and onwards to Cornwall. May we please have a debate on that matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I can tell my hon. Friend that Network Rail has identified 10 projects to improve flood resilience on its western route. That programme might take several years and the funding mechanism is still to be determined, but it will be important to him. Network Rail is liaising closely with the Environment Agency and will continue to do so.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

At the beginning of the year, the Cabinet Office released documents under the 30-year rule relating to the miners’ strike. The documents clearly show that the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and senior Cabinet Ministers interfered greatly in the miners’ strike, deliberately misled the country and potentially misled Parliament. May we have a debate on that matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of 1984. I was a civil servant at the time, so I was completely non-partisan in those matters, but I remember them. I remember well that the Government were making absolutely sure that the economy of this country was not held to ransom. That was really important.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) whether it was fair that a woman who is discriminated against at work because she is pregnant has to pay £1,200 to enter a tribunal. The Minister said that that was not true. Given that it is true—this is not a point of order, Mr Speaker—may we have an urgent debate on how the Government’s decision to introduce fees for employment tribunals is choking off access to justice?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman should simply have listened to the reply given by my hon. Friend earlier today.

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

In Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, average weekly gross pay has fallen by 32.5% since 2010, and the number of under-25s who have claimed jobseeker’s allowance for more than 12 months has increased by 223% since December 2010. May we have a debate on the cost of living, and on yesterday’s news that the unemployment count in the north-east went up by 1,000?

[Mr Lansley]

There were regional variations in the employment data yesterday, but having predicted the loss of 1 million jobs, it ill behoves the Labour party not to celebrate the fact that there are one and two-thirds million more private sector jobs in this country than there were at the general election. I am afraid the Labour party is in complete denial about the inevitable fact that, as a consequence of its policies, the deepest recession this country has experienced took the equivalent of about £100 billion from the country’s wealth. It is not possible for everybody in a country to have more money at the same time as it has been made £100 billion poorer.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

A young man in my constituency has a zero-hours contract, but when he has worked he impressed his employer who offered him a six-week training course, leading to a permanent job. I am sure the Leader of the House will want to join me in celebrating that young man’s success—except for the fact that he has been told by the job centre that he has not been on the Work programme long enough and cannot take up the offer. May we please have a debate on the mess that is the Work programme, which—not for the first time—has denied one of my constituents a proper job with real prospects?

[Mr Lansley]

It is the Government’s intention to support young people back into work, and that is what the Work programme and our Youth Contract are all about. It is the largest such programme to support young people, and as a consequence 114,000 fewer young people are among the claimant count. If the hon. Gentleman sends me the particular circumstances of his constituent, I shall of course ask for a response from my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

One supermarket in my constituency offers free newspapers and coffee, another has opened a new carwash and dry cleaner as it competes for customers, and that of course has a significant effect on local independent retailers. May we have a debate on the balance needed between the actions of the supermarkets and the need to look after our small shopkeepers, and on how we provide support for local independent retailers?

[Mr Lansley]

It is important for the hon. Gentleman to recognise that competition is, as they say, the tide that lifts every boat. In his constituency, as elsewhere, competition will in the end deliver the best consumer benefits.

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

Everybody wants this country to maintain its economic improvement, but may we have a debate about cuts to local government education budgets? It seems contradictory to demand an increase in skills to compete with the world, while also cutting education at its source.

[Mr Lansley]

Notwithstanding the fact that we had to deal with the largest deficit of any country in the OECD, this Government made the commitment—among others—to protect school budgets, which we have done. The hon. Gentleman should celebrate the fact that, together with our coalition colleagues, we have put about £2.5 billion into the pupil premium to ensure that schools with some of the most disadvantaged children have additional resources to help them achieve success in future.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

In September I asked the Prime Minister whether he would adopt a similar approach to that of Sweden and other European countries in accommodating Syrian refugees. He dismissed me, simply saying, “No, we are not going to do that.” Will the Leader of the House assure me that should the Government have a change of heart in the next few days, the Prime Minister will come to the Chamber to make any announcement?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope the hon. Lady was in her place yesterday and able to hear the Prime Minister make it clear that this country is making the second biggest contribution to meeting the humanitarian needs of refugees from Syria, and proportionately we are doing more than anybody else to support those refugees. We are responding to and fully meeting our commitments to those seeking asylum, and as she knows, last year there were around 1,100 asylum applications from Syrian refugees. The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that we will look at individual cases, but we will not do what some other countries have done who think that taking a relatively modest given number of refugees away from refugee camps somehow meets their obligations to the millions of refugees who want to be supported in their camps, and not to leave and give up hope of returning to Syria soon.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) called for a debate on welfare. We had a debate on welfare just 10 days ago, when the House of Commons voted by a majority of 123 in favour of a commission of inquiry into the Government’s welfare reform policies. When I asked the Leader of the House last week when he was going to establish the commission, he rather derisively told me that he had no plans to do so. The House voted for a commission. Will he to agree to set up such a commission, or is it the Government’s policy that Back-Bench motions are ignored and to be of no account whatsoever in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman imputes a motive to me that certainly was not there. He asked the question last week and I will repeat my answer today. The Government consider carefully all motions approved by this House. As I told him last week, I was not in a position to advise him that we had any plans to establish such a commission.

Armed Forces Restructuring

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

11:36

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the final part of the armed forces redundancy programme. As the House will be aware, following the decisions set out in the 2010 strategic defence and security review, the first such review for 12 years, we have been significantly restructuring and reshaping our armed forces to ensure we can sustain their world-class capabilities in the future. As we move from more than a decade of enduring operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and as we bring our troops back from Germany, we are constructing a new force, Future Force 2020, to protect this country against future threats.

Restructuring the armed forces has required us to transfer personnel and resources between regiments and trades to ensure that we can invest in new areas of priority, such as cyber and ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. We have also needed to ensure that our armed forces retain the right age profile and skills as they reduce in size. Achieving that outcome has, unfortunately, required a limited redundancy programme.

Today, the armed forces are announcing the specialist areas from which they will select personnel to be made redundant in this, the fourth and final tranche. By strongly encouraging transfers between different parts of the Army in particular, we have deliberately sought to keep the number of redundancies to an absolute minimum. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen recent speculation in the press about the size of the final tranche. As a result of the steps we have taken, I can confirm that the overall number of redundancies required is considerably lower than that predicted in some recent press articles and lower than in each of the three previous tranches. It will comprise up to 1,425 members of the Army, up to 70 medical and dental officers and nurses from the Royal Air Force, and up to 10 from the Royal Navy.

Tranche 4 will apply the same selection principles within the eligible cohorts as were used in the last three tranches. Selection for redundancy will be based on three criteria only: performance, potential and employability. This is viewed by the individual services as the fairest methodology to all who fall into the redundancy bracket. Individuals will be informed of the outcome of the selection process on 12 June 2014. Applicants for voluntary redundancy will leave six months later and non-applicants 12 months later. As with previous tranches, there are a number of important exclusions from eligibility for compulsory redundancy: those serving on specified operations any time between today and the date of notification of selection for redundancy, 12 June 2014; and those who, on the date of notification of selection for redundancy, have been warned for specified operations commencing on or before 12 December 2014.

Unlike tranche 3, those who volunteer for redundancy having been formally warned for specified operations deploying before 12 December 2014 may still be directed to deploy by their chain of command. This is to ensure that their places do not have to be backfilled at short notice owing to the notification period occurring over the handover between the Herrick 19 and Herrick 20 deployments. The redundancy programme will not impact adversely on current operations in Afghanistan. Personnel assessed as being permanently below the level of fitness required to remain in the forces will not be considered for redundancy and will instead leave through the medical discharge route at the appropriate point in their recovery.

As a way of reducing still further the number of personnel to be made redundant, we will continue to encourage personnel to transfer from areas of surplus to areas of shortage. Specific vacancies have been identified across all three services and those identified as at risk of redundancy will be encouraged to transfer to areas for which they have appropriate skills and will be offered retraining, as necessary. The chain of command will continue to inform these personnel of the transfer opportunities available to them at all stages of this process.

I have also instructed the services to seek to maximise the number of volunteers in order to minimise the number of compulsory redundancies. However, noting that 84% of personnel made redundant in tranche 3 were applicants, it is likely that the percentage of volunteers overall in this final tranche will be lower owing to the low historical level of volunteers among Gurkhas—one of the fields eligible in this round—and the fact that a number of specialist fields will face 100% selection, meaning that there is little or no incentive to volunteer.

Throughout the whole redundancy programme since 2010, approximately 500 Gurkhas have been transferred to other parts of the Army, significantly reducing the requirement for Gurkha redundancies. However, there remains a surplus of personnel in the Brigade of Gurkhas, which is due largely to the changes in their terms and conditions in 2007 that aligned their service periods with that of the Regular Army—from 15 years to 22 years—and a raised recruitment level to compensate for some soldiers’ previous long periods of leave in Nepal. Gurkha personnel now serve on the same terms and conditions as the rest of the Army and are therefore eligible for the redundancy programme, like other personnel currently employed in areas of surplus.

I fully recognise the challenges for servicemen and women of transition to civilian life. My Department has worked hard throughout this programme to ensure that all those selected for redundancy receive not only an extensive redundancy package but comprehensive resettlement support to help them find work and settle into life outside the armed forces. The career transition partnership, which provides briefings, advice and guidance on such issues as housing and obtaining future employment, is highly successful in assisting service leavers to find work, and our latest figures indicate that approximately 90% of service leavers seeking employment find it within six months of leaving the armed forces—a better result than for the population in general.

To support service people leaving the armed forces still further, I can announce an additional measure today. Last year, we announced a new £200 million Forces Help to Buy scheme for service personnel. Ownership of a family home provides security and peace of mind and will help to smooth the transition to civilian life. I have therefore extended the scheme to allow personnel leaving in tranche 4 who do not own a home to apply for a loan in advance of their redundancy package to allow them to purchase a home during the period between notification of redundancy and the actual date on which they leave the armed forces and receive their lump sum redundancy payment.

As an organisation that is fed from the bottom up, the armed forces are always recruiting, and this must and will remain a priority. There is a constant need to replace with new talent those who are promoted or who complete their service. The armed forces require a constant flow of young, fit recruits to maintain the structure required. That is why a major multi-media Army recruiting campaign began earlier this month for both regular and reserve recruits, which we are confident will raise awareness of Army recruiting and provide the backdrop to a reinvigorated recruitment effort at all levels over the next couple of years to deliver the numbers required to man our future structures, both regular and reserve.

For the men and women of our armed forces, I know that this has been a painful process, but completion of this final tranche will mark a turning point. With the bulk of our troops back from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and coming back from Germany over the next four years, as we build Future Force 2020 they will be able to enjoy the peace of mind that comes from belonging to armed forces that have put a period of change and restructuring behind them and are focused on building their skills and capabilities for the future.

After a decade of unfunded promises and shortages of key equipment under the previous Government, our personnel will have certainty about the future size and shape of our armed forces, and confidence that they will have the kit, equipment and platforms they need. Just as important, the country can have confidence that its armed forces will not only be affordable and sustainable, but among the most battle-hardened, best-equipped and best-trained forces in the world, able to ensure that Britain remains safe and secure in the future. I commend this statement to the House.

23:46

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement and for early sight of it, which I appreciate.

Have we not come a long way since the Conservative party said before the last election that they would have a bigger Army for a safer Britain? What happened to, “Put simply, we need to have a larger Army and we need more infantry”? When did that change? It changed when the party entered government; it was a broken promise. There were more broken promises from them even in government. After his Government’s defence review, the Prime Minister said in 2010:

“we will retain a large, well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—7,000 fewer than today.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 799.]

Why did that change? Will the Secretary of State accept that this Government have let down the armed forces and their families?

No one underestimates the challenges of reconfiguring our armed forces and at the same time maintaining the British military’s reputation as the best in the world. Withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the presence in Germany means that there is, of course, a need for an appropriate reduction in personnel across all three armed forces. That is sensible and fair, and we support it. Is it not the case, however, that the Secretary of State is failing to approach this with the strategy required for the good of the country and the sensitivity required for the good of the individuals involved and their families? Let us not forget: this is about people.

The Secretary of State has simply not made a convincing case for further redundancies in the armed forces or for reducing capability at an even quicker rate. Does he accept that there are real concerns that by pressing ahead with these redundancies, the Government are taking risks with Britain’s safety and security? It was clear last year that the required uplift in the number of reserves—the 10,000 new recruits to replace the 30,000 regulars—was not happening at anywhere near the speed required. The Government hardly met a third of their own targets. We said then, as did Members from across the House, that the Government should pause their reductions in Army numbers until it was clear that their reserve recruitment was on track. That is still the case today.

On this specific round of redundancies, will the Defence Secretary tell us how many of them will be compulsory and from which regiments and squadrons the redundancies will be drawn? Does he not agree with me that this is a shocking way to repay the dedicated service that these people have given their country? Is he concerned about a loss of skills, particularly on pinch points, and what is he doing to address the problem? Will he confirm at least that no one will be made redundant in a way that affects their pension entitlement? Is it true that a small number of military personnel have been made redundant just days before they meet a service requirement for a pension to which they are entitled? If that is the case, it is not fair. Will the Secretary of State say more about the support he will give those who are leaving the service and making the transition to civilian life?

The Gurkhas are one of the finest fighting forces in the British Army. Does the Secretary of State accept that they have been affected disproportionately by cuts in the Army? In 2011, more than half the redundancies fell on the Gurkhas, and in the second tranche of redundancies in January 2012, when the rest of the infantry lost only 500 men, they lost 400. Does the Secretary of State think that that is fair? What does he think about the public perception that those redundancies are a result of the increased cost of the Gurkhas following their rightly successful campaign for better pay and conditions?

The sense that I have today is one of amazement. How does the Secretary of State do it? A recruitment campaign started last week amid great fanfare, but was followed a day later by the revelation of an IT crisis that had prevented people from signing up, and now by a parliamentary statement announcing redundancies. If the Secretary of State were a football referee, the crowd—and it would have to be a charitable crowd—would be chanting, “You don’t know what you’re doing”—and they would be right.

The Government are letting down our armed forces and their families, and taking risks with our country’s safety and security. The Secretary of State’s story is one of failure, on procurement, recruitment and redundancies. He is getting it wrong and he knows it, and today’s statement only reinforces that.

[Mr Hammond]

Dear oh dear! Let us start from the beginning. The hon. Gentleman trotted out some well-known lines that he has used before, and I shall respond to them as I have done before.

The hon. Gentleman began by asking when the Government had changed their aspiration to have larger armed forces. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends can help me with that, but I would guess that it was at about the time when Labour was wrecking our economy, and we were recognising that we would have to recalibrate our ambitions in all sorts of areas in order to govern the country responsibly. We understand, above all else, that a strong defence of this country can be built only on a strong economy. We must first repair the damage that Labour has done to our economy and then repair the damage that it has done to our society, after which, hopefully, we shall in due course be able to afford to put more money into our armed forces as our economy and our public finances recover.

The hon. Gentleman said that we had let the armed forces down. I say that it is Labour, through its wrecking of our economy, that has let our armed forces down, as it has let the rest of the country down. As for the hon. Gentleman’s comments on this particular tranche of redundancies, what I hear from him is total confusion. He accepts the need for downsizing and restructuring of the Army, but says that we have not made the case for using the redundancy process to do that. He is talking nonsense. We have set out a structure for our armed forces in “Future Force 2020”. They will be smaller than they have been previously, but, crucially, they will have a different structure, relying on reserves, on civilian support and on contractors in some specialist areas. As a consequence, the redundancy process needs to address the structural imbalance in the Army, taking out areas of capability that we no longer need in our regular forces.

As the hon. Gentleman will understand if he listened to my statement, I cannot tell him in advance what percentage of the redundancies will be compulsory; that will depend on how many people volunteer. However, I have been very upfront with the House. As there will be a significant number of Gurkha redundancies and Gurkhas traditionally do not volunteer for redundancy, and as the fact that 100% of the numbers in some fields of redundancy will be made redundant, giving little incentive to volunteer, we expect the overall percentage of volunteers to be lower in this final round of redundancies than it has been in the past.

The hon. Gentleman made two points about fairness. First, he asked whether I thought it was fair that people approaching their immediate pension point—the point at which they can leave the Army and draw an immediate annual cash pension—should be eligible for redundancy. We have thought very carefully about this over the period of the redundancy programme. The truth is that wherever we draw the line there will be somebody just on the other side of it who feels hard done by, and understandably so, but we concluded that it would be unfair to take into account length of service—proximity to immediate pension point—as a criterion for redundancy and we have stuck to that position throughout all four tranches of redundancy. Given the nature of the fields we are looking at in this tranche, we expect the number of people potentially at risk of redundancy who are within a year of their immediate pension point to be very small compared with previous tranches.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Gurkhas and raised again the question of fairness. He asked explicitly whether the increased cost of Gurkha service was driving these redundancies. The answer is no, but it is the change in their terms and conditions. Previously Gurkhas served under different terms and conditions. The size and level of recruitment to the Brigade of Gurkhas was designed around 15 years of service. We now have to deal with the bulge caused by a change in the terms and conditions so that Gurkhas serve for 22 years. That is a structural challenge in the Brigade of Gurkhas. We have also seen a change to the terms and conditions of service, which no longer provide for Gurkhas to take long periods of leave to return home to Nepal. That was previously covered through an over-manning by about 370 individuals in the Brigade of Gurkhas, which allowed for those periods of extended leave at home that are no longer available now that the terms and conditions of service are standardised across the Army. So what we are seeing here is not an unfairness; we are seeing the consequences of a decision to apply fairly the terms and conditions of service to the Brigade of Gurkhas as they are applied to the rest of the Army.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has said this is the final tranche; well, thank God for that. What commitment can he give that this is the very last of these unwelcome statements for many years to come?

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell my right hon. Friend that the resizing of the Army announced as an outcome of the strategic defence and security review 2010 will be achieved by the redundancies that have been announced over the last three tranches and the redundancies that will be announced in this tranche. This will deliver us the size of the armed forces we need for Future Force 2020. I cannot predict or predetermine the outcome of the next SDSR, which will take place after the general election in 2015.

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

The Secretary of State recently confirmed in a written answer that we have deployed military personnel in a US base in Djibouti. Please will he tell me what their role is? Are they involved in the drones programme in Yemen, and will they be affected by this cuts announcement?

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that personnel deployed on overseas operations will not be affected by the redundancy announcement I have made today.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

While many will remain baffled at this Government’s priorities in increasing overseas aid by £2.5 billion this year and continuing to inflict these long-planned cuts on the Army, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that had it not been for the fact that the Ministry of Defence was starved of its share of the increase in public expenditure under the last Government, the base from which we would have had to restructure the MOD under this Government would have been a jolly sight better than it has been?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend has a good point. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) lectures me from the Opposition Front Bench, but it is noticeable that during that long period after 2001 when there appeared to be no limit to the scale of public spending and no limit to the level of taxation and borrowing and spending that the then Government were prepared to engage in, the armed forces did not share in that cornucopia and the consequences are here for all of us to see today.

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

The Conservative party continued to promise a larger Army even once the scale of the challenge facing our public finances and the country was known. Does he accept that that did a disservice to the British public and the armed forces on whom we rely?

[Mr Hammond]

I know that Opposition Members do not like this, but the truth is that we discovered a black hole in the finances of the Ministry of Defence that had to be dealt with if we were going to have sustainable armed forces in the future and eliminate our armed forces being asked to deploy without the equipment and protective personal equipment that they required to do so safely. We had to put that right. That has meant that some tough decisions have been made, but my understanding is that the Opposition accept the restructuring and resizing of our armed forces and that we have to have an Army of 82,000 going forward. If I am wrong about that, I should be happy to be corrected from the Front Bench and to have an explanation of how the Opposition propose to pay for a larger Army.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

When the withdrawal from Afghanistan is complete, the RAF will have only about four aeroplanes and a few hundred people deployed abroad, yet it retains 220 combat jets, 650 support aircraft and 36,000 men. It is not clear to me what these are for, given that there is no discernible air threat to the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend be a little less timid and have a close look at how military aircraft assets are held in this country and set about some vastly needed and urgent reform?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. The balance between the different arms and the focus that we put on different parts of our defence infrastructure is quite properly reviewed in the strategic defence and security review process. I am glad, and I am sure he will be too, that we have now placed this on a firm quinquennial footing so that the issues can be reopened and re-examined regularly. It is quite proper to do so.

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

Is not the failure of the Army recruitment strategy the reason the redundancy numbers are smaller than originally envisaged?

[Mr Hammond]

We constantly look at all the levers—as the Army calls them—of manning. The levers are recruitment levels, voluntary outflow—people leaving the service before the last possible date—and redundancy, which is always the last resort. There is a constant rebalancing. We had already reduced intended recruiting numbers to minimise redundancy, but we cannot do the whole restructuring through the recruitment lever alone because in some areas we have to take personnel out of the structure in order to deliver Future Force 2020.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Some people suggest that there will not be much support for expeditionary warfare among the public again. In my experience, the public can be very fickle, especially when events and horrors happen. With this tranche of redundancies, we now have the smallest armed forces we have had for a long time. May I ask the Secretary of State to say what everyone in this House feels—that our armed forces will now be up to any challenge that they are asked to meet within their small numbers, and that our people should rest assured that they will do that extremely well when called on to do it?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend observes that we shall have the smallest Army for a number of years when we have completed this restructuring, but we might also remind ourselves that we still have the fourth largest defence budget in the world and, on any fair and objective assessment, the second most capable expeditionary armed force capability in the world after the United States. The public can rest assured that our armed forces will do their duty and protect this country wherever, whenever and however called upon to do so.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. The UK Government have acknowledged that personnel reductions in Scotland have been disproportionate. The right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor confirmed that there would be cuts of 27.9% in Scotland, compared with 11.6% across the UK. Will the Secretary of State confirm that personnel numbers are at a record low in Scotland, at around 11,000? That is significantly lower than the level of 15,000 planned by the Scottish Government for after independence.

[Mr Hammond]

I was thinking about how to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but he has just given me the solution. The Scottish Government’s so-called plans for the future Scottish defence force exist in cloud cuckoo land. Their numbers simply do not add up, and our analysis shows that they would require about 30% more than they are proposing to spend to deliver the full structure that they have outlined in their White Paper. I look forward to coming to Scotland in due course and deconstructing, yet again, the rubbish coming out of the Scottish National party.

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm for my constituents that we still have a well-equipped, properly staffed and professionally led defence force that is capable of meeting present and future challenges and defending our nation?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. Future Force 2020 will be able to deliver the outputs specified in the strategic defence and security review, in which we set out clearly what we expect our armed forces to do and how we expect them to work, frequently in partnership with allies. I am confident that they will be able to deliver those outputs for the benefit of our nation.

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

What can the Secretary of State tell us about his longer-term recruitment plans for the Gurkhas, or is this just the beginning of the end for them?

[Mr Hammond]

No, we maintain recruitment of Gurkhas, but we have to deal with the structural imbalance caused by the changes made in 2007. Once we have done that restructuring, the pattern of sustainment in the Brigade of Gurkhas will require continued recruiting as we move to a normal pattern of 22 years’ service for Gurkha servicemen.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The Prime Minister’s approach to defence is the most complacent I have known in my lifetime. A few days ago, the former US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said:

“With the fairly substantial reductions in defence spending in Great Britain, what we’re finding is that it won’t have full spectrum capabilities and the ability to be a full partner as they have been in the past.”

Does the Secretary of State accept that assessment from someone who knows what he is talking about?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he remembered the previous Prime Minister’s attitude to defence when he made that sweeping assertion. I have a great deal of respect for former Secretary Gates, but he has been out of office for a couple of years now. I also noted that, in the interview in question, he seemed distinctly vague about some of the details of our defence policy. He could not even quite remember what our position was on aircraft carriers, and it seemed to have completely passed him by that we were building the two largest ships in the Royal Navy’s history right now, not only to replace the carrier capability but hugely to enhance it. I absolutely reject his suggestion that we will not be able to be a worthy and preferred partner for the United States in the future. Just last week, I met the commander of the United States fifth fleet, who told me specifically that the Royal Navy was, and will remain, the fifth fleet’s partner of preference and that, in their joint operations in the Gulf, the dividing line between the Royal Navy and the fifth fleet was invisible. That is the way we want it to be, and that is the way we will ensure it remains.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree—he will not like this—that the great British public are not stupid and cannot be fooled and that we know, our allies know, our enemies know, our admirals know and our generals know that, today at the Dispatch Box, he has run up a flag that tells the world that we are no longer a serious world power? [Interruption.] That is the truth, and he cannot disguise that fact.

[Mr Hammond]

Well, I have heard some rubbish in my time. Although we might disagree, the hon. Gentleman could have tackled me on a range of issues about the impact of the changes that we have made in the structure and funding of our armed forces, but this final tranche of redundancy today—about 1,500 people across the armed forces—is not a big structural change and certainly does not warrant the accusation he has made.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the unpalatable and difficult decisions that he has had to take on manpower were an absolute requirement to enable us to fund the rebuilding of the fleet, which has always traditionally been, and should remain for a country that is an island dependent on trade, our No. 1 defence priority?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes the good point that, as we look to the challenges of the future, we must be prepared to take difficult decisions to flex how we spend the budgets and resources that we have available. Even half a decade ago, no one was talking about investing in cyber-warfare. Now, it is the No. 1 issue on everyone’s agenda. As our defence budgets are not getting larger, to invest in this critical new area, we have to disinvest in other areas. That is the nature of the difficult challenges we face, and we will continue to take those difficult decisions in Britain’s best interests.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Clearly, as we draw down the Regular Army, the plan is to increase our reservist capability. All the people in the Army Reserve whom I talk to say that we must still do more to persuade particularly small and medium-sized employers to support their employees serving as reservists. What more can the Government do to support them in releasing their people to serve?

[Mr Hammond]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question, and he is right: a big part of getting the reserve recruitment agenda right, and for that matter the reserve retention agenda right, is engagement with employers. Engagement with large employers, including public sector employers, is well advanced, but he is absolutely right to put his finger on the fact that engagement with smaller employers is, first, more difficult and, secondly, crucial to the success of this project. The Defence Reform Bill, which is in the other place, which I am not supposed to call the other place any more—currently, in the House of Lords—

[Vernon Coaker]

Where did that happen?

[Mr Hammond]

In the Procedure Committee, I believe. The Bill contains provisions that will allow us for the first time to pay bounties to small and medium employers when their reservist employees are mobilised. That is not perhaps a differentiator in itself, but it sends an important signal to small and medium employers that we recognise the cost burden that they take on when they allow a member of their staff to become a reservist.

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

As the British Army rebalances its Regular-reservist ratio, will the Secretary of State confirm that, once the Defence Reform Bill becomes law, the large pool of reservists will be considered for all future operations on equal merits as the regulars and that the call-up process will be a lot simpler and without fear of financial loss to the reservists?

[Mr Hammond]

Well, there were a lot of multiple questions in there. First, I should like to make it clear that the restructuring of the Regular Army is predicated on a number of things. The growth of the reserves is one of them, but an increased use of civil support and contractors to provide some of the support functions is also an important part. Once we have built the reserve force to the level that we have set out by 2018, there will be certain areas where we use reservists routinely on operations because we only hold those capabilities in the reserve force. But of course, a core function of the reservists will always be to provide resilience and reinforcement for an enduring deployment of the nature of what we have been doing in Afghanistan.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State not recognise the public’s disillusionment that the cost of being the fourth highest spender on defence in the world has been the loss of the lives of 626 British soldiers in two avoidable wars? Does not punching above our weight militarily always mean dying beyond our responsibilities?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is doing a great service to the families and memories of our brave servicemen and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the two campaigns that he refers to. I do not think that many hon. Members or, indeed, many of the British public think that it is either right or in our interests to turn our backs on the world. We are an open nation and a trading nation that depends on the maintenance of the rules-based system of international law and trade. We should remain fully engaged in the future, and our armed forces are but one—a very important one—of the many levers that we have available to maintain our influence in the world.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The armed forces recognise, as does everyone else, what had to be done to clear up the mess that the last Labour Government left the country in, but they want, as we all do, some stability and certainty in their lives, so will my right hon. Friend reiterate and make it clear to the House that, once this last tranche of redundancies has been completed, that is it—this is the final tranche—so that everyone in the armed forces knows that they have some stability and certainty?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and that is exactly what I want to convey today. This has been a difficult time: a period of uncertainty and change, and no one likes uncertainty or change. The armed forces will now be able to concentrate on the future and on building the skills and capabilities that we have set out for Future Force 2020, knowing that we have completed the draw-down in size and the major restructuring that we have undertaken. That provides a very robust base to build for the future, with armed forces that will remain one of the most experienced combat-hardened and capable armed forces in the world.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether personnel who are serving on operations will be accepted or refused if they apply for redundancy?

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to clarify that for the hon. Lady. Personnel who are serving on operations are, of course, eligible to apply for redundancy if they wish to do so, but if they are serving on operations at any point between now and the announcement date on 12 June, they will not be eligible for compulsory redundancy. So if they do not volunteer, they will be exempt from redundancy.

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

Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the reinvigorated recruitment effort that he told the House about? In particular, will he be open to different methods, so that we can see more of what works?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend might well imagine, Ministers and senior officials are vigorously examining different approaches that have been tried in different areas and different parts of the country to see what works best. What is clear to me is that, as I said in the House last week, we must focus back on using front-line reserve units as the principal tool of recruitment to the reserve. We can support that with national campaigns and a nationally managed IT platform, but we must rely on front-line reservists recruiting their fellow reservists. Everything that I have seen reinforces that, and it will be one of the driving requirements in how we manage this campaign.

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

May I clarify that the Secretary of State is promising the House that RAF redundancies will be confined to a maximum of 70 medical and dental officers and nurses?

[Mr Hammond]

I can confirm that.

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

The plan to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists is beset with problems, including more than £50 million wasted on a botched IT system, missed recruitment targets, cancelled reserve courses and a widening capability gap. Given that the previous Secretary of State recently confirmed in this House that the original plan was to hold the regulars in place until the reservists were able to take their place, can this Secretary of State inform the House why and when that plan changed?

[Mr Hammond]

First, my hon. Friend continually asserts, and I continually rebut, the idea that we are trying to replace 20,000 regular soldiers with 30,000 reservists— that is not what we are doing. We are restructuring the regular force; the regular force will be smaller. We will use civilians in a different way from how we have used them in the past. We will use contractors more effectively, learning the lessons, particularly from the US experience of using contractors to support combat operations. We will also use reservists, but it is simply wrong for him to suggest that this is a straightforward swap of 20,000 regulars replaced by 30,000 reservists. That is not how it works.

My hon. Friend knows very well the answer to the second part of his question: there is not the budgetary capacity to maintain the Regular Army at 102,000 while building the reserve to 30,000 by 2018. That simply cannot be done without imposing new and unwanted cuts elsewhere.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State had to say about individuals being made redundant just before their immediate pension point. What he failed to say, of course, was that for some long-serving officers this loss can amount to tens of thousands of pounds in forgone pension payments. Does he really believe that that scale of loss is consistent with the spirit of the military covenant?

[Mr Hammond]

Let me just be clear about what we are talking about, as although the hon. Lady may understand this, perhaps not all hon. Members do. When people reach their immediate pension point they can leave the Army, notwithstanding the fact that they may be only in their 40s, and take an immediate pension. When somebody is close to, but has not reached, their immediate pension point when they leave the Army through a redundancy, they receive an enhanced lump sum redundancy package to reflect that fact and they still, of course, retain their pension rights when they reach their pensionable age of 60 or 65, depending on what pension scheme they are in. We have looked at the alternatives and concluded that all of them would deliver at least as much unfairness to other groups, and that this is the fairest and most appropriate way to proceed.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We were told, understandably, that the armed forces had to take their share of pain through the time of recession. Surely, by the same coin, as the economy is growing they can take their share of the gain. If the reserve recruitment programme does not go as well as we all hope it will go, can we at least keep the door open—I am not asking for a commitment now—to once again recruiting more for the Regular Army in the future and increasing it to meet our commitments as they arise?

[Mr Hammond]

I can say two things on that to my hon. Friend. First, unfortunately, the scale of the damage to our public finances is such that, as the Chancellor set out a couple of weeks ago, although the economy may be recovering, we have not yet dealt with the structural deficit we inherited from the Labour party, and it will take some years yet to correct the fiscal imbalances that we face in this country. However, he is right to say that we should never say never, and one of the key drivers in our restructuring of the Army is to ensure that we retain a capability to regenerate force, so that if at some future point our public priorities change or external circumstances force us to change them, we will have the capability within our armed forces to expand again and regenerate that capability.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

How many Gurkhas will lose their jobs? What percentage of such redundancies will be voluntary?

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell the hon. Lady that the expected number of redundancies in the Gurkha areas are: 71 in the Queen’s Own Gurkha Logistic Regiment; 28 in the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers; 246 in the Royal Gurkha Rifles; and nine among Gurkha staff and personnel support functions. On voluntary versus compulsory redundancy, all I can tell her is that historically the uptake of voluntary redundancy by Gurkhas has been very, very low. Therefore, on a pessimistic projection, I have to assume that the majority of those redundancies will be compulsory.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has already confirmed that the UK has the fourth largest defence budget in the world. Will he also confirm that the UK, along with the United States and, ironically, Greece, is one of only three of the 28 NATO members to be achieving the 2% of GDP level on defence expenditure?

[Mr Hammond]

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend, as my colleague the Estonian Defence Minister would never forgive me for not mentioning this, that Estonia has joined the elite band of countries that meet the 2% of GDP defence spending target. Just four countries in NATO meet that target.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I am sure that members of the RAF will feel the shock that I felt at the announcement that 70 medical and dental officers and nurses are to be made redundant. In evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, those were identified as “pinch trades” in some aspects of the armed forces. The Secretary of State has talked about the ability for people to retrain. Will he say something about the support given for people to leave one branch of the armed forces and move into another branch, where there may well be vacancies they can fill?

[Mr Hammond]

First, I reassure the hon. Lady that nobody will be made redundant in a pinch-point trade; these redundancies are happening only in areas where we are carrying surpluses. As a result of restructuring, a change in the way we deliver the service means that the posts of 16 RAF dental officers, nine RAF dental nurses and five RAF dental technicians are no longer required. She is right to raise the issue of retraining, and I recall that she raised it in respect of previous tranches of redundancy. We have put in a lot of effort in this tranche to make sure that we put even more emphasis behind the opportunities for retraining. Where people have the skills and the willingness to retrain, they will be fully supported through the chain of command to retrain and redeploy within the armed forces. We have no wish or ability to lose talent and skills that we have, so long as we can deploy them in a way that is usable within the new structure that we are putting together.

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

What impact will this announcement have on Devonport-based ships and the Royal Marines based in my constituency? Will he ensure that we can recruit more doctors and dentists, bearing in mind that we have one of the finest medical schools in the country?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have been at pains to point out, the fact that we are making people redundant in certain areas does not always mean that we will not be continuing to recruit in those areas. The armed forces are bottom-fed organisations, and we have to get the correct rank structure within each of the specialisms. My hon. Friend will have heard me say that the maximum number of Royal Navy redundancies will be 10, all of which will be in the medical and dental field. I expect the impact on the Royal Navy to be very limited. We will, however, have smaller medical and dental services in the future, to reflect the way in which we provide those services to our armed forces in peacetime.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the scale of the financial challenge faced by the MOD in 2010 compared with that in other nations? Will he also tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure that we do not face such challenges again?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I know that Opposition Members do not like it being said that we inherited a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget. We have dealt with that and we have put in place a balanced equipment plan that is fully funded with a contingency of £4.5 billion in it. More importantly, we have put in place mechanisms to ensure that projects do not get signed off willy-nilly by politicians when the resources are not in place to pay for them. That ensures that we have a coherent defence budget and that we never again find ourselves in the position of the former Labour Defence Secretary Lord Hutton who, for the want of £300 million over two years, was forced to delay the aircraft carrier project and drive £1.6 billion of additional costs into that programme. We will not get ourselves into that position.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Some of my constituents have been alarmed by recent reports of unfilled vacancies in key roles such as intelligence officers, radiologists and electronic warfare system operators. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the announcement today will take account of the need to maintain all capabilities and avoid expensive short-term replacements from outside the armed services?

[Mr Hammond]

As I said in an earlier reply, we will not be making any redundancies in those pinch-point fields. We face, across the armed forces, a number of areas in which we directly compete with very highly paid civilian occupations. I am talking about engineering of all types—nuclear, aircraft and airworthiness speciality skills. In those areas, it is a constant challenge to recruit and retain staff, but those are challenges that the single services manage extraordinarily effectively in the circumstances.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

How many of those currently working at the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, many of whom are constituents of mine, will be affected by this programme? Will the Defence Secretary confirm that all those made redundant will receive a generous compensation package and help with housing and new jobs? We need to work closely with counties such as Gloucestershire, which have signed the military covenant, and to emphasise to the young of our county and my city that there are still real opportunities to join the Army and learn skills, for example as bricklayers and electricians.

[Mr Hammond]

Those opportunities do indeed remain, and the purpose of the current marketing campaign is to emphasise to people that all areas of the military—the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Marines—are recruiting and open for business. However, we are conscious that the inevitability of a redundancy programme sends out a somewhat mixed message. I can also confirm that military redundees receive generous compensation packages. I have announced today help with housing purchase, and there is an excellent programme in place for supporting people to acquire the skills they need for dealing with the civilian world, including employment search. I am confident that we have done everything we can to make the transition from military to civilian life as smooth as possible for those who will be affected by the programme.

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

A question has been raised about the armed forces covenant. Will the Secretary of State clarify and confirm that it was brought about by this Government in 2011, helping armed forces personnel and their families. Will he also clarify whether, following the post-2014 restructuring that will take place after Afghanistan, the United Kingdom will retain all its Reaper drones, and whether those drones will play a part in our long-term strategy?

[Mr Hammond]

I can confirm that it is this Government who have enshrined the armed forces covenant in law and have very positively driven the armed forces covenant programme since that time, creating the community covenant and the corporate covenant, which now play an important part in the overall programme. My hon. Friend also asked me about Reaper drones post-Afghanistan, stretching the statement on redundancy to its maximum limit. None the less, I say to him that we expect unmanned aerial vehicles to form a permanent and significant part of our future aerial capability.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

If 18 medical and dental posts are to be lost from the RAF and the Royal Navy, what efforts are being made, and what incentives are being provided, to ensure that such experienced and dedicated personnel find new careers in the NHS where their skills are badly needed?

[Mr Hammond]

Such people are inherently employable. Almost all of them will be absorbed pretty much immediately into the NHS. The priority challenge for us is to ensure that as they make that transition into the NHS, they join the reserves to continue playing a part in delivering Britain’s military capability.

Points of Order

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

12:36

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] May I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is making a point of order, it has to be just that. It cannot be a question to a Minister, and I cannot answer questions on behalf of the Minister.

[Vernon Coaker]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it not have been appropriate for the Secretary of State to make available to the House before the statement a document that broke down some of the numbers relating to the redundancies? For example, he referred to it in answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) about the Gurkha regiments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If the Secretary of State has an answer to that question as it concerns the workings of the House, I will ask him to comment.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether it would be in order, but if you say that it is, I will happily place in the Library of the House a document that shows the fields. This document will have been circulated in the Army today and it will become publicly available, but I am happy to put it in the Library of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is certainly in order for the Secretary of State and his Ministers to give information to Members of this House. I am grateful to him for reacting so quickly to a request to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence confirm that what he proposes to put in the Library—I hope it will be today—is the announcement of the specialist areas from which the armed forces will select personnel to be made redundant, to which he referred in his statement? Will he confirm whether that is what he is proposing to put in the Library? I wonder whether that will give us an understanding of the geographic breakdown across the country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is inappropriate and out of order now to carry on the arguments rehearsed during the statement. However, if the Secretary of State would like to give further information on a point of order about information to Members of this House, I will allow him so to do.

[Mr Hammond]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be interested to know that the document I intend to place in the Library will set out the fields and the numbers against each field. However, unless my hon. Friend is a very credible detective, I doubt that he will be able to determine much about the geographical distribution of those redundancies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State for his helpful provision of information.

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

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, I asked a flooding-related question of the Leader of the House. My husband has a direct interest in and is on the register of the Fire Protection Association, which is a not-for-profit organisation. As the fire service is the common thread there, it is probably appropriate that I make a reference to an indirect interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is indeed appropriate, and I thank the hon. Lady for setting the record straight so quickly.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you are an avid reader of the Daily Mirror and will therefore have seen the story this morning about the rusting Russian cruise hulk that is apparently drifting towards the United Kingdom and is populated by cannibal rats. Has the Department for Transport or the Home Office said whether a Minister will be coming to the House to update us on what on earth is going on?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will not enlighten the House about the number of times a week I read the Daily Mirror, but although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in bringing this clearly important and worrying story to the attention of Members and of Ministers—[Interruption.] Order. I have at this stage had no indication that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will have been heard and taken on board by those on the Government Front Bench.

Bills Presented

Consumer Rights Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Vince Cable, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Pickles and Jenny Willott, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the rights of consumers and protection of their interests; to make provision about investigatory powers for enforcing the regulation of traders; to make provision about private actions in competition law; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 161) with explanatory notes (Bill 161-EN).

Deregulation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Oliver Letwin, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary Michael Gove, Mr Secretary Pickles, Mr Secretary Paterson, Mr Secretary Davey, Mr Secretary McLoughlin, Secretary Maria Miller, Mr Kenneth Clarke and Michael Fallon, presented a Bill to make provision for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals; to make provision for the repeal of legislation which no longer has practical use; to make provision about the exercise of regulatory functions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 162) with explanatory notes (Bill 162-EN).

Backbench Business

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

12:41

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House is seriously concerned at the decision of the Government to refuse to release papers related to the building dispute in 1972 and subsequent prosecutions of the workers known as the Shrewsbury 24 and calls on it to reverse this position as a matter of urgency.

The debate is long overdue but I urge colleagues not to intervene unless they feel they have to, because there are a number of Members who wish to speak and time will obviously be limited.

Nineteen seventy-two was a momentous year for industrial relations in this country. A weak Government had twice declared states of emergency, first in February during the first miners’ strike for almost half a century, and secondly in August during the national dockworkers’ strike. Matters were made worse by the Government’s attempts to prevent unions from defending their members’ rights, wages and conditions at work. It was clear that of all the work forces in the United Kingdom, the building industry was a bigger mess than all the rest put together. Wages were low, there was no job security and exploitation was rife through a system known as “the lump.”

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Anderson]

Quickly.

[Jim McGovern]

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which I am a member, has conducted an inquiry into blacklisting. Would it be fair to say that the Shrewsbury 24 would most certainly have been blacklisted after the strike in 1972?

[Mr Anderson]

I thank and forgive my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is absolutely no doubt about it: people were blacklisted. One real sadness about what we are discussing today is that 40 years on from that disgrace, similar things are still taking place. The Scottish Affairs Committee should be congratulated on the great work it has done in this area.

The lump was a system whereby people were paid cash in hand, meaning not only that no income tax or national insurance contributions were paid—so the state was robbed—but, vitally, that workers were uninsured against accidents or worse while they were at work. That was extremely serious. A building worker was dying every day on average on building sites across the UK and, in the three years before 1972, almost a quarter of a million industrial injuries were reported, with many more not being reported.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Anderson]

In exasperation, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I hope that his debate will be balanced. He talks about the need to protect people’s rights and about violence, so I very much hope that in preparation for the debate he spoke, as I have, to some of the police officers in Shrewsbury and some of the people in the building trade who experienced great violence and intimidation from those people at that time.

[Mr Anderson]

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman listens to what I have to say, he will realise what went on in Shrewsbury, including evidence from the police—

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Has he spoken to the people there?

[Mr Anderson]

I will run the debate; the hon. Gentleman should just sit there and listen.

In 1972, the unions, exasperated at the failure to achieve progress, called the first and so far only national building strike ever held. Four months later, the strike was called off after the unions forced their employers to concede the biggest increase in basic pay rates ever. It was a victory for the working man, but a bitter blow for the employers, who were determined on revenge. They were not alone. The Tory Government were rattled by the success of one of the least well-organised groups of workers in this country and were determined to help their friends in the building industry.

To pursue that revenge the employers’ body, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, went on what can only be described as a fishing expedition. It wrote to its members on 20 September 1972, two weeks after the strike ended, seeking any information related to possible violence and intimidation during the strike. The clear intention of the federation was to pass the dossier on to the Home Secretary for his consideration so that he could tighten up the law on picketing in industrial disputes. The federation specifically asked its members for information on any incidents available to them, including signed statements from any eye-witnesses; copies of any photographs from local newspaper photographers of, as the federation said, “the more notorious occurrences” that would give strong support to the submissions; and any other kind of suitable evidence that members might have come across, such as tape recordings and personal photographs.

It was not just the members of the federation who were being written to. In a letter to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Robert McAlpine complained that there was no problem with the law governing pickets and their activities, but that the problem was rather down to

“the lack of enforcement of the law by the police”.

That was a clear shot across the bows of the people who had the responsibility of ensuring that the law was adhered to on the ground. The police, in whom we put our faith to ensure that the law is upheld properly, were being told by an employer that they had not done their job properly.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Anderson]

Yes, but will my hon. Friend please be quick?

[Mr Cunningham]

I will be as quick as I can. It is not only in the building trade that blacklisting has gone on since the ’70s; it has gone on in other industries. We have recently had debates about that. More importantly, the Tories have not changed. Look at the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, because that tells us a lot. They want to make the law worse for working people.

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend is right. Some things, sadly, never change.

When the dossier was completed in October 1972, it was passed on to the then Home Secretary, Robert Carr, who immediately instructed the chief constables of West Mercia and Gwynedd to investigate events in one particular part of the country—that is, the area in and around north Wales. He obviously wanted to pursue the agenda laid out by the employers in the dossier despite reports such as those in the Financial Times—hardly the workers’ friend—that said:

“This document is itself flawed since it suggests the existence of a sinister plot without being able to substantiate the allegations.”

Those involved who are in the House to listen to the debate today believe that the Home Secretary gave the job to the police so that they would put bones on the case that the employers were trying to make.

Why was that important? If it could be shown that the activities of the pickets were deliberately planned to intimidate, the charges laid against them could be much more serious than those for the argy-bargy that was the norm on picket lines. In particular, if conspiracy could be proven, the potential to lock up some of the leaders of the dispute for a very long time became a reality.

The choice of north Wales as the focus for police action was not an accident. Despite evidence of much more aggressive activity in other parts of the country, the Home Secretary deliberately focused on north Wales. That might be purely coincidental, but I can assure the House that no one involved in the campaign believes that to be so. North Wales was a part of the world where the McAlpine family had a huge amount of political influence. They were not only influential players in the Tory party but one of the biggest developers in the building industry, including at the site in Brookside in Shrewsbury that was the epicentre of the case against the pickets. In addition—again, this may be purely coincidental, but I doubt it—the high sheriff of Denbighshire, the man responsible for law and order in the area, just happened to be the ninth member of the McAlpine family in succession to have held that post.

As the police investigation gained momentum, 31 pickets were arrested on 14 November—two months after the end of the dispute. The men were released without charge, but three months later, on Valentine’s day 1974, 24 of them were rearrested. A barrage of charges— 242 in total—were levelled at these men, all of whom were charged with intimidation. Much more seriously, the first six to go on trial were charged with conspiracy to intimidate contrary to common law. This was the charge that the employers’ body wanted to see, because it gave the establishment the chance to send pickets to jail for long periods. The intent was clear—lock these people up and the rest of the trade union movement will know that legitimate trade union activity, including picketing, could now be treated as a criminal act.

So how did these workers become embroiled in this legal minefield? On 31 August, a joint meeting of members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the Transport and General Workers Union was held in The Ball and Stirrup pub in Chester. At the meeting, which was the first time many of those present had met each other, a request was read out from union members in the Shropshire area seeking support from other comrades throughout the north-west to successfully prosecute their case in their area. The meeting agreed that a group of pickets would travel down to Oswestry on 6 September to meet local activists and then decide which locations to picket.

That meeting is crucial to the issue. Anyone who has ever been involved in picketing, and looking round this room, I see a number of people who have been, knows that, especially when you are going outside your own area, you have to plan properly—basic stuff including where people are going to be picked up, when they can expect to get home, and where they are likely to be throughout the day. You also need to ensure that anybody going picketing is aware of the need to behave properly at all times and give them clear information in case there are problems. The meeting was simply a planning meeting, but crucially, when the case went to court, it was classed as a meeting to conspire to intimidate workers on the ground. No evidence was ever laid to substantiate that claim, but it was the crux of the case and it was what led to imprisonment.

The prosecution were so intent on getting jail sentences imposed that they even charged a person with conspiracy who was not present at the planning meeting. John McKinsie Jones had been collecting union subs in the downstairs bar of the pub, and he left before the planning meeting even began. He was nowhere near the meeting, yet amazingly he ended up being sentenced to nine months in jail for conspiracy to intimidate. How on earth can someone be part of a conspiracy when they are not even at the meeting where it is discussed?

It is interesting to compare what happened to the pickets who were charged with 242 offences between them and those at other courts who had been involved in similar activities. Earlier in the year, two trials were held in Mold. At the first trial, only minor charges were upheld by the jury and the maximum fine was £50. At the second trial, the jury found all defendants not guilty of anything. One of the main reasons for this was that in Mold, prior to the jury being selected, the lawyers for the defendants exercised their long-held right to challenge potential jurors. As was the right of the defence laywers, they were looking for people who might have connections with the building industry or might be hostile to trade unions. As a result of the cross-examination, a number of prospective jurors were excluded from the jury.

However—again, forgive my scepticism—after those trials, but before the Shrewsbury ones began, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, another part of the Tory hierarchy, unilaterally banished the right of lawyers to challenge jurors. This was done without warning and contrary to decades of practice, and without any prior consultation with the legal system or other interested parties. In order to try to get a fair trial despite these clearly deliberately motivated changes to the legal process, the defendants’ lawyers requested that the trial of those charged in relation to picketing in Shrewsbury be held in Mold or be moved to an area of the country that was more neutral than Shrewsbury would have been. The judge flatly turned down that request and set 3 October 1973 as the date for the first hearing.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Mais, was a surprise choice for such a high-profile, politically charged case. He had little, if any, experience in cases of this magnitude, or in criminal cases at all; his expertise was mainly in rural and ecclesiastical matters. His behaviour throughout the case led many to question his capability and impartiality. A number of issues gave rise to this concern. For example, when the jury were called to bring in the verdict, they were unable to come to a majority decision—they were tied at eight to four. The judge asked them to keep going but they said, “We’re too tired to go on today—we need to have a break.” So he agreed to give them a break and let them stop in a hotel overnight, but he closed by saying:

“You should go to the accommodation prepared for you…and I suggest that you continue your deliberations there.”

That was an extraordinary thing to suggest. The only place where a jury should consider any case is in the jury room and nowhere else, be it a hotel or anywhere else.

If that were the judge’s only error, it would still be wrong, but throughout the trial his behaviour was, to say the least, questionable. The campaigners provided me and other Members of this House with reports from David Altaras, a junior barrister who defended Ricky Tomlinson at the first trial. In 2012, he gave a statement in which he said:

“Given the fact that I regularly adjudicate criminal trials myself I have no hesitation in saying that, during the trial, the Judge’s conduct towards the defence frequently crossed the line between permissible and impermissible behaviour and amounted to a display of obvious hostility towards the defendants. He took particular exception to John Platt-Mills who represented Des Warren and to Des Warren himself. I vividly recall an occasion when Mr Platt-Mills was cross-examining a witness (probably a police officer) and the Judge took off his wig and threw it on the bench in irritation. I recall occasions when he threw his pen down and turned to face the wall when either a defendant was giving evidence or the defence were adducing evidence in cross-examination. In addition, I can remember his rather rude interruptions during cross-examination.”

He went on:

“During the Judge’s various outbursts, I remember members of the jury nudging one another. My own view at the time, a view shared by other members of the Defence team with whom I discussed the Judge’s behaviour, was that the jury (a) could have been in no doubt where the judge’s sympathy lay and (b) could have absolutely no doubt that he loathed Mr Platt-Mills.”

So we had a court case where the legal system had been changed to deny jury challenges, that was held in an area where the defendant’s legal team were genuinely concerned about the lack of neutrality and was presided over by a judge whose inexperience was matched only by his partiality.

But it gets even worse. The campaign team’s researcher, Eileen Turnbull, has trawled through documentation that is in the archives at Kew. She has uncovered a letter dated 25 January 1973 from the then Attorney-General, Peter Rawlinson, to the then Home Secretary, Robert Carr, in which he advised the Home Secretary that in his view, having discussed the case with Treasury Counsel and the Director of Public Prosecutions, these

“proceedings should not be instituted.”

That was the highest legal advice in the land. We remember how, in the previous Parliament, my party was, quite rightly, lectured by then Opposition Members about the failure of Tony Blair to listen to the Attorney-General in relation to the Iraq war. In this instance, the same authority advised the Home Secretary not to pursue the case. The Home Secretary ignored him, and we have to ask why. The people who went to jail are clear about the reason. They have no doubt that the pressure from the building industry, particularly from a man who would soon be appointed as deputy treasurer and chief fundraiser to the Tory party, was overwhelmingly more important than the views of the people entrusted with advising on legal issues at the highest level.

We must remember that this pressure had been felt by the police at the highest level, with the result that in the autumn of 1972 they set up a huge fishing expedition. A team of detectives were billeted in north Wales and 800 statements were taken, of which 600 were discarded. This was despite the fact that on the day in question—6 September 1972—not only were no arrests made, but the police actually congratulated the leaders of the pickets on the disciplined way in which they conducted their activities. We must also remember that this was all done at the behest of the building employers’ federation.

Another issue of grave concern was the decision during the trial to allow an inflammatory television programme to be aired on the very night of the prosecution’s summing up. Under the title, “Red under the Bed”, the programme was an attack on this country’s left-wing political parties and trade union activity. It specifically referred to the ongoing trial. The day after it was aired, Judge Mais dismissed the defence’s attempts to have the TV company charged with contempt. Indeed, he criticised the defence for having the temerity to raise the matter. What is of even greater concern is that the papers that have already been released show that the then Government, right up to the then Prime Minister, were involved in assisting the programme to be produced.

There is clear evidence in the paperwork already in the public domain that a special unit was set up in Government to undermine legitimate trade union activity and to paint left-wing political activity and parties as subversive, despite their legitimate right to agitate in a modern democracy. That was all being done behind closed doors and it would never have been exposed without the determination of those who still seek justice today.

These men went to jail as a direct result of the onslaught of the establishment over a prolonged period, which was clearly designed to deter the wider labour movement from using industrial action to pursue its legitimate claims. Des Warren was given a three-year jail sentence and Ricky Tomlinson a two-year sentence, and John McKinsie Jones—the man who was not even present at the so-called conspiracy meeting—went to jail for nine months. Other men received suspended jail sentences. At the second trial, three more pickets—Brian Williams, Arthur Murray and Mike Pierce—were given jail sentences. At this and the subsequent third trial, others were also given suspended jail sentences.

These men and those who have been campaigning for more than four decades contend that they went to jail and got criminal records as a direct result of direct political interference in this country’s political and judicial systems by very strong personalities who pressurised politicians, senior police and members of the judiciary to take part in a witch hunt and to send out a clear message of intent that people involved in industrial disputes would face exceedingly serious consequences.

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

I am listening intently to the worrying case being made by the hon. Gentleman. Is he able to enlighten me on whether there was a financial link between the employers and the party then in government? In other words, were the employers funding that political party?

[Mr Anderson]

I cannot say for certain that that was the case, but it is clear that one of the main protagonists was Mr McAlpine, who became the deputy treasurer of the Conservative party within a matter of months after the trial ended and who was also one of the party’s chief fundraisers for decades.

The ongoing refusal to release all the documentation related to this case only hardens the suspicions of those involved. The morass of papers already in the public domain show clear evidence of the pattern of pressure that was applied in order to get the results the employers wanted. Today we have a chance to set in train the process that should lead those in power to come to a view that it is in the real public interest and, clearly, a matter of natural justice that the remaining papers be released. Only then will we really be able to see just how far the tentacles of big business spread into the public realm. Whether we like it or not, we are responsible for the failures of the state in the past. Today, collectively, we can start to address those failings.

13:03

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

It is very interesting to see no fewer than 34 Labour Members present.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

And trade unionists.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

And trade unionists; I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. It is quite clear that old Labour is still alive and well and, in some respects, seeking both to justify and to romanticise mob rule and violence and intimidation.

[Mr Campbell]

You have not been listening.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Not only have I been listening, but I was party to the public debate at the time, for I had a letter published in The Times on 14 January 1975, when I was director of Freedom Under Law, calling on the then Home Secretary to allow the law to be upheld and for the jail sentences of Tomlinson and Warren to be maintained, so I have an interest in the matter.

It is important for Labour Members to realise that if they wish to secure the support of the British people at the next election, they need to make it clear that they renounce the kind of practices that prevailed in the 1970s and 1980s.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I am not going to give way at the moment. It is very important that people should understand the conditions that applied at the time. People who were going about their ordinary activities were subjected to intimidation. I became the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood in 1983 and I saw constituents of mine who were trying to go to work in Littleton colliery having bags of urine thrown at them by striking miners from south Wales.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not give way. This was in the day of the flying pickets. These people would go around the country supporting trade unions that were engaged in that kind of intimidation, even though they themselves had absolutely nothing to do with the strike or industry in question.

The statistics make interesting reading, because it was at this time after the second world war that Britain was going substantially down the tubes. Successive Conservative Governments had failed not only to turn back but to arrest the ratchet of socialism that had driven through this country in the immediate post-war years. [Interruption.] I see that that has huge support on the Opposition Benches.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman is a Labour Member for whom I have an immense amount of time. He was a very good Transport Minister and it would give me enormous pleasure to give way to him.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will forgive me if I disagree with pretty much everything he has said so far, even though we do agree on certain aspects of life in politics. The motion calls for the publication of papers. It does not call for anybody to make judgments for and against; it asks for the papers to be published so that the public can make a judgment call. Some of us believe that those papers will show certain things and, obviously, Conservative colleagues think they might show something else, but surely we can agree on transparency in politics and the publication of documents.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am slightly relieved to hear that he does not agree with what I have said, because that makes my life easier and it probably makes his life easier as well. I will not resile from my personal affection for the hon. Gentleman and I will address his point.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) was on his feet for about half an hour, during which he talked about the circumstances that prevailed at the time. We heard about the way in which the workers were being ground down by the employers and, of course, every possible opportunity was taken to associate those employers not only with the Conservative party, but with its fundraising efforts. It is important that there is a public understanding of the conditions that prevailed at the time and how it came about that these men were jailed.

I want to draw attention to the record of days lost to industrial action at the time. In 1970, when Ted Heath became Prime Minister, nearly 11 million days were lost. In 1971, the number of days lost was 13.5 million; in 1972—the year in question—it was nearly 24 million; in 1973 it was 7 million; and in 1974 it was 14.75 million. That illustrates just what was going on in the country at the time. [Interruption.] There was indeed a Tory Government. There was also a concerted effort by the trade union leaders, whom Margaret Thatcher described in her book as being first, second and third socialist politicians. They were not trade union leaders and they were not looking after the interests of their members. They were in pursuit of a political objective, which was to support the socialist party under the guise of the Labour party at the time. That is what they were trying to do. The Conservative Government at the time did not have a majority and, I submit, probably did not have the conviction to roll back socialism and tackle the trade union reform that was necessary, which was of course addressed by Margaret Thatcher and the 1979 Government.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I invite the hon. Gentleman to respond to the question put to him about the motion. I do not want to hear a re-enactment of the events of 40 years ago. The general public are entitled to see the papers relating to what happened then. Does he agree that the papers should be published so that both sides can see exactly what happened 40 years ago?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I told the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is a friend, that I would address that point, and that I would do so in my own time, not in his. The Liberals, typically, are sitting on the fence. I forgive my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). It is absolutely right and proper, and important—[Interruption.] I know that we are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but there we go.

Britain was the sick man of Europe in the 1970s. One reason for that was the kind of trade union activities that were going on. The hon. Member for Blaydon has given his romanticised version of what went on, and I am absolutely determined to put an alternative case, and I hope that I am in order to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. That alternative case will not be uttered by any Opposition Members. I suspect that the only other person to do so will be my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who of course has a vested interest in his constituency. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon, and I will indeed continue.

I have set out the pattern of industrial action that was destroying Britain, and of which the country was absolutely fed up. An opinion poll in The Times in January 1980 said that 71% of the people surveyed about the kind of measures that the Thatcher Government were introducing —to restrain secondary picketing and intimidation—wanted those measures to be taken, as, interestingly, did 62% of trade unionists. One of the successes of the Thatcher period was to restore trade unions back to their members, taking them out of the hands of their politically motivated leaders. We were acting very much in line with the spirit of the British people.

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

This history lesson is very interesting from the hon. Gentleman’s point of view, but for the third time, will he give us a straightforward answer: does he believe that the papers should be published—yes or no?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman, who is also a friend, will have to be patient. I will deal with that point in my own time. [Hon. Members: “When?”] In my own time.

Secondary picketing was eventually outlawed in 1984, during the Parliament in which I first served in this House. Much has been said about the cases of Warren and Tomlinson, but it is very important to put some of the facts on the record. To quote from my letter in The Times of 14 January 1975:

“It is worth reminding them”—

those who took the same line as the hon. Member for Blaydon—

“of the words of Mr Justice Mais, the trial judge, in passing sentence on December 20, 1973. Of one of those jailed, he said: ‘You took part in violence and encouraged violence… You are prepared to impose your views on others by violence if need be.’”—

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On three occasions, the hon. Gentleman has been asked to clarify his position and to address the motion. He is not in any way discussing the motion. Will you perhaps advise me? Time is moving on and many hon. Members wish to speak, but he is clearly filibustering to waste time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is not possible for a Member of the House to filibuster while I am listening carefully to what is said and making sure that it is relevant to the matter before us. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) has explained that he is coming to the main point of his argument. I have allowed him to develop his argument, as is perfectly in order, but he is an experienced parliamentarian and will know that he must come to the very point of the matter. I will be very strict this afternoon in making sure that all speeches are within the scope of the matter before us and are properly in order.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members should accept that the question whether the remaining papers that have not been released to the National Archives should be revealed is a pertinent one. In debating, as we are, the issues surrounding the cases, particularly two of the cases, it is highly relevant to question whether the papers should be revealed.

Before I was interrupted, I was quoting Mr Justice Mais, the trial judge. He went on to tell the six people before him:

“Some of you were clearly determined to strike terror in the hearts of those who continued to work.”

That was a very serious crime indeed. Furthermore, the case went to appeal and, to quote The Times editorial of 20 December 1974, the Court of Appeal judge said:

“There was at each site a terrifying display by pickets of force and violence actually committed or threatened against buildings, plant and equipment; at some sites, if not at others, acts of personal violence and threats of violence to the person were committed and made. Persons working on the sites and residents near by were put in fear.”

That should not be tolerated in our country, and it should not be supported by Opposition Members.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted the Court of Appeal judge. He was the same judge on whose verdict the hon. Gentleman relied for many years in resisting the case for a new inquiry into Bloody Sunday and so on. Is he confident that his reliance on Widgery today—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. In interventions as well as speeches, hon. Members will stick to the matter before us. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman may make his point, but he must refer to the matter before us, from which he was straying very considerably.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I also want to refer to people who have spoken more recently about the issue. An article from Wales on Sunday of 27 January 2013 in the debate pack provided to Members—so it must be relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker—states that

“Peter Starbuck, who says he was Oswestry’s largest contractor at the time, claims violence and intimidation were a routine part of the strikers’ tactics and the convictions are sound. And bricklayer’s labourer Clifford Growcott has described how he was ‘punched and kicked like a football’ during the strike.”

I am astonished that Opposition Members want to side with people convicted of using that sort of violence against their fellow human beings.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman who proposed the motion.

[Mr Anderson]

I take from what the hon. Gentleman has said that the Court of Appeal judge was Lord Widgery. On the point about the litany of activities that are supposed to have happened—if it is correct that those events happened, they are very serious—why was not one person arrested on the day that they happened or are alleged to have happened? Lots of policemen were there, so why did they not pick those people up and arrest them? Why did that happen five months down the line, when they were effectively stitched up by the case against them?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman obviously knows the answer to that question. I have no idea. I was not involved in the trial and I was not at the trial, but I was involved in the public debate at the time.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.

I remind Opposition Members that in Margaret Thatcher’s excellent book, “The Downing Street Years”, she wrote about the Government’s attempts to deal with trade union legislation. At one point she says that

“when a dispute did occur the trade union was able to exercise what amounted to intimidation over its members—‘lawful intimidation’ in the unhappy phrase coined by Labour’s former Attorney-General, Sam Silkin.”

At the highest levels of the Labour party at that time, such practices were basically endorsed. I say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that the country has moved on. If the Labour party wishes to occupy the Government Benches once again—I very much hope that it will not—its Members must understand that the public out there do not want to see any return to such behaviour or to hear any sympathy expressed for it.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) has been extremely persistent and I am delighted to give way to her.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is talking about the dispute. The motion is about the request for papers. The Government cite national security as a reason for not disclosing those papers. What does national security have to do with an industrial dispute?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will address that point in one moment. I only wish to make two further points and one of them will address the hon. Lady’s question.

Robert Carr, who became a peer in the other place—I will continue to refer to it as the other place, Madam Deputy Speaker—was accused of conniving with the police and the security forces at the behest of the construction industry. That is a conspiracy theory. Those of us who knew Robert Carr cannot imagine that he was anything other than a charming, polite and reasonable Home Secretary. I do not think that he was in the business of conniving.

Let me conclude by coming to the point that has been raised a number of times.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I say to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that if he concludes his speech in the next two to three minutes, he will have taken the same amount of time as the proposer of the motion. That would be reasonable.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. I will fully comply with the implicit request.

I put it to Opposition Members that it is not only the current Lord Chancellor who has reviewed these matters. I have not spoken to him about the matter, but I understand that he has done so recently. He has considered that there is no reason to change the decision of previous Lord Chancellors. Lord Irvine was Lord Chancellor in 2002 when the 30-year rule would have applied. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) later became Lord Chancellor. Labour’s Lord Chancellors all concluded that it was not appropriate for certain of the papers to be revealed. [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Labour Members must address that question to the right hon. Member for Blackburn. I have no responsibility for bringing him to the Chamber to provide answers on these matters. He is a Member of the Labour party, not of my party.

It is important that we put it on the record that successive Lord Chancellors have looked at this issue and deemed it appropriate that certain papers, supplied or otherwise relating to the intelligence services, should not be released to the National Archives. I am not privy to what those papers are. I dare say that I would like to look at them. However, I repose my trust in Lord Chancellors, whether Conservative or Labour. They should be responsible for determining whether our national security would be imperilled.

To conclude, in the 1970s, when the nation was being held to ransom by strikes all over the country, people like me and my new wife were stocking up with provisions in case there was a shutdown, and Ross McWhirter of the “Guinness Book of Records” and I were looking at how we might produce a newspaper to get information out to the public when the newspapers were being closed down by trade union militants. That was the mood of the nation at the time. It is important that the country understands that. This case arose out of that mood.

Thank goodness for this country that we had a Conservative Government, led by a real Conservative in Margaret Thatcher, who restored the power in trade unions to their members. Today, we have the evidence. The number of working days lost to strikes in 2012 was not 10 million, let alone 30 million. It was not even 1 million. It was 250,000. That is testimony to the fundamental reform of trade union relations that was carried out in this country. The United Kingdom has prospered ever since.

13:19

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

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) claims to be a member of the most transparent Government ever. Ricky Tomlinson might have a couple of words to say about that. I congratulate—[Laughter.] Someone’s just got it!

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on the tenacity he deployed to secure today’s debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, which has been persuaded, unlike those on the Government Benches, that this issue is important enough to warrant a full parliamentary debate. It is important that we stick to the terms of the motion.

It is true to say that this debate has been a long, long time coming. We now know more than ever about the political, judicial, media and police manipulation that scarred the working lives of 24 ordinary men, who were wrongly convicted on trumped-up charges, with six of them unjustly jailed. As John Platt-Mills, QC, said:

“The trial of the Shrewsbury Pickets is the only case I know of where the government has ordered a prosecution in defiance of the advice of senior police and prosecution authorities”.

I want to praise on the record the remarkable persistence of the campaigners over the past four decades. In particular, I praise Ricky Tomlinson for the way in which he has used his fame as an actor to highlight this injustice. Despite his success, he has remained steadfastly shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the other Shrewsbury pickets and their families. Ricky said from the dock during his trial:

“I know my children when they are old enough, will understand that the struggle we took part in was for their benefit and for the benefit and interest of building workers and their families.”

When I was indentured as an apprentice bricklayer in 1978, notwithstanding the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Britain’s building sites were still workplaces of great danger and the conditions for workers were shockingly poor. On most sites, there were no proper toilets, washbasins or lockers. There were certainly no hard hats, goggles, gloves and masks as standard personal protective equipment. People died daily.

When workers had the audacity to ask the state to take action and stop the carnage, the Government of the day interfered in the business of the judiciary, resulting in the most political and corrupt criminal trial that had been seen in peacetime Britain.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

If the strike and the prosecutions are a matter of such importance to national security that the papers will not be released 40 years later, why did it take the police five months to make any arrests?

[Steve Rotheram]

I will develop that point at the end of my speech and explain why it is so wrong that it has taken so long even for the matter to be debated in this House.

The people we are talking about were arrested on trumped-up charges, received a dodgy trial and were given unsound convictions. That would not be allowed and would not be acceptable today, and it should not have been allowed and should not have been acceptable then. It was a legal process that would shame a third-world dictatorship.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon has suggested, the exploitation of workers and the unacceptable and unsafe working conditions in which workers were forced to operate were the bedrock of the first ever national building workers’ strike in 1972. As a result of that national strike, which was settled on 16 September 1972, the building workers succeeded in achieving an across-the-board increase for all trades working in the construction industry. There was, however, enormous political anxiety as a result of that victory, fuelled by a targeted lobbying campaign by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. Shrewsbury 24 campaigners firmly believe that the end of the strike was in fact the beginning of the employers’ campaign to have pickets prosecuted, and to use that as a deterrent should they ever have the temerity to take further industrial action.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that that was the precedent that started the ball rolling for all the disputes that came after? That dispute set the goal, which is why it is important to have transparency. After that court case came ’74, ’84, and the miners’ strike—the legal position changed at that point.

[Steve Rotheram]

Absolutely, it was used as a battering ram to send a message not just to construction workers but to working class people throughout the country who decided to take industrial action.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) mentioned previous Labour Lord Chancellors, particularly the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with previous Labour Lord Chancellors about why the information has not been released?

[Steve Rotheram]

The hon. Gentleman should not think I am going to stand here and defend the indefensible. We had an opportunity when in government to do what we are asking for today, but we did not take it. However, that does not stop people continuing to campaign and trying to persuade the Government—no matter what colour—that that is the right thing to do. That is what we are doing today.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is there another consideration, because since previous Lord Chancellors considered the issue and refused to release the papers more research has come forward from campaigners that now makes it more materially important to release the papers and be transparent?

[Steve Rotheram]

That is a good point, and as things develop more and more information is known. Some further information has been gathered by Eileen Turnbull, and I am sure other Members will refer to that in their contributions.

On 20 September 1972, a letter was sent to all NFBTE regional secretaries around the country from its head office in London. It was headed “Intimidation Dossier”. The dossier was presented to the Home Secretary, Robert Carr, who had previously been Secretary of State for Employment and overseen the introduction of the contentious Industrial Relations Act 1971. Out of 85 instances of alleged intimidation and violence detailed in the dossier, only six related to north Wales. Despite the undeniable fact that most incidents occurred elsewhere, the Home Secretary instructed the chief constables of West Mercia and Gwynedd police forces to carry out an inquiry into picketing in north Wales during the strike. Let us not forget that, as was said earlier, none of the pickets was cautioned or arrested on the day, the unions did not receive any complaints from the police about the conduct of the pickets, and photographic evidence shows that the police were present and mingling freely with strikers. Some police had their hands in their pockets—hardly intimidation.

We now know that of the 900 statements taken, 600 were disregarded by the authorities, presumably because they failed to corroborate what the police hoped they would say. On 11 October 1972, Robert Carr told this House that in his opinion there was no deficiency in the law as it stood, and the problem lay with enforcement. In other words, he was pressuring the police who he believed had failed to do their job properly. A few days later, the then Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson QC, gave a speech to the Tory 1922 committee in which he used strikingly similar language. Following that, we know that of the 200 or so pickets identified, just 24 were carefully selected for a political show trial at Shrewsbury Crown court, and charged with the offence of intimidation under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

As my hon. Friend may be aware, criminal lawyers in the legal community know that conspiracy charges are always used when there is no evidence of a substantive proper charge. It is the last resort.

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Steve Rotheram]

I will not take any further interventions. I intended to take 11 minutes but my speech has gone over that because of the interventions.

Six pickets were singled out for special treatment and to stand trial for the common law offence of conspiracy to intimidate. They were arrested while the other 18 were summoned to appear, thereby indicating the distinction in the severity of their roles to the court. That strikes me as odd. Given that the police made no arrests and undertook no immediate investigation after the picketing in and around Shrewsbury on 6 September, where did the “'disturbing evidence” that Robert Carr referred to come from? Campaigners will never know until all documents are released.

In addition to the submission of the dossier, other less transparent forms of lobbying took place, as documented in a letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis—the highest ranking police officer in the country—from Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons in February ’73. That was followed by personal representations to the Home Office, and questions to Ministers designed to turn up the pressure for the police to pursue pickets. As we have heard several times, there were no reports of violence on the picket lines, and no arrests made at the time of the strike.

We have recently seen documents relating to the Brixton riots, the Lockerbie bombing, Mrs Thatcher’s attempted use of the Army against the miners, as well as details of how she made no effort whatsoever to make the case for the release of Nelson Mandela. Most surprisingly, perhaps, in November 2013 The Guardian reported details about the release of secret memos relating to the efforts of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to maintain a Cypriot base. Given the political, strategic and geographical importance of that base, it is surprising—certainly to all Opposition Members—that an issue of such magnitude does not warrant an extension of the security and intelligence instrument of the Public Records Act 1958, yet documents relating to a couple of dozen strikers during a building workers dispute 40-odd years ago are deemed to be a risk to our national security! It would be farcical if it was not so serious for those whose lives have been deeply scared by this miscarriage of justice, and I can see no reason whatsoever for the Government to withhold the release of those papers.

Yes, it will probably be politically embarrassing for the Conservative party; yes, it will be another shameful exposé of Britain’s dark past in which the powerful ran roughshod over the weak; and, yes, it will be an indictment of how the British establishment—including the hon. Member for Aldershot—believed it was above the law when it conspired to fit up individuals or groups whose politics it feared. But it would be the right thing to do.

I will conclude by placing this debate in a much wider context. We are at a juncture in our country where we have the chance systematically to cleanse the wrongs of our recent history. From Bloody Sunday to historic child and sexual abuse cases; from Amritsar to Stephen Lawrence; and, yes, from Hillsborough to—who knows?—perhaps Orgreave and beyond. I believe that the House must act upon this moment. The Shrewsbury campaign may well have been the first in a series of injustices that have spanned more than 40 years, leaving heartache and grief in their wake, but the time has come for the obfuscation to end, for campaigning to succeed, for documents to be released, and for justice to be done.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. A large number of Members want to participate in the debate so I am imposing a time limit of six minutes for each Back-Bench speech, starting immediately. We will see how we go through the afternoon, but it may be necessary for that limit to be reduced further if we do not have enough time to fit everybody in.

13:39

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

As the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, this matter is obviously of great interest to me. I want to put into context my initial question to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). To have a strong debate and a point of view, we need to try to understand the other person’s perspective. That is why I asked him how much time he had spent in Shrewsbury interacting with the local people trying to find out their interpretation of what happened at that time. I say to him, and to other hon. Members, that, being the Member for this beautiful Shropshire town, I have spoken to a lot of my constituents who were there at the time. I was born in 1972 when these incidents occurred, so I have to rely on the first-hand accounts and experiences of my constituents. It was disappointing to have been shouted down by Opposition Members when I tried to make that point.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, 1972 was a time of great industrial strife. Some people felt that they had the right to intimidate and use violence to achieve their political objectives. Margaret Thatcher saw the danger to democracy of allowing this to continue. She saw a great danger to our parliamentary process and to the rule of law by not tackling people who felt that the use of violence was a perfectly legitimate tool to pursue their aims. We must not forget how damaging militant trade union vandalism was, and we must never allow it to return.

I spoke to the police officer who was first on the scene, Mr Aubrey Kirkham. He is a respected member of the Shrewsbury community. He described the people descending on our small town that day—400 people, I think he said to me, came on coaches from outside Shropshire—as a “marauding mob”. He felt that they meted out huge intimidation to local people and massive violence to local workers. Police suffered great violence and were massively outnumbered. He told me of one bricklayer from Heathgates in Shrewsbury who had a brick thrown at him for refusing to come down from scaffolding. He subsequently fell and a year later he died. Some of his family think that he died as a direct result of that incident.

Many constituents say that these people have been tried and convicted by a jury, and they are bewildered that this debate has even been called. They think that Parliament should be looking at other, more pressing priorities.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The issue we are debating is not whether what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct, or whether what is being said by Opposition Members is correct. If the papers were to be released, we would be able to make that judgment, and that is what we are calling for in this debate.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

If the hon. Lady allows me to finish, I will come on to exactly that point.

Obviously, I have also spoken to many people in the building trade in the past few days, in advance of this debate, for their first-hand accounts. If any hon. Members are genuinely interested in finding out what the people on the ground felt at that time about the violence, I very much hope they will approach me.

Coming on to the point raised by the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Blaydon asked for the documents to be released. I have two questions. I will be very brief and let other hon. Members contribute. I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot: we have to ask why, over a long period—the Labour party was in office for three terms—former Labour Lord Chancellors decided not to release this information. That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. If Opposition Members feel passionately about this issue—I clearly see that they do—they should challenge and scrutinise their colleagues to ask why the Labour Government did not release it.

I am very interested to hear from the Minister whether he will release the documents and, if not, why he is not prepared to release them. I have been approached by constituents who have a different perspective. They feel that they do not want documents to be withheld from the public domain if there is the potential for a cover-up of some kind, or some form of inappropriate behaviour. As a community, I think the argument is evenly balanced in Shrewsbury. There are people who want to remember the violence. We are a wonderful but quiet Salopian town. This was an extraordinary event in our history and they want people to remember the violence they experienced. They also want the Government to account for why they will not release the documents.

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

In the book “The Key to My Cell” by one of the pickets, Des Warren, he says that when, on 6 September 1972, they visited the first site at Kingswood, they were greeted by the son of the contractor who had a shotgun in his hand and was threatening to use it. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he seems to be presenting to the House a one-sided version of what happened?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

As I have said repeatedly, both sides of the argument have to be taken into consideration. I felt it appropriate to come here today, as the Member representing Shrewsbury, to outline some of the things that leading members of my community have stated. Clearly, there are other perspectives. I hope the Minister will explain, if he is not going to release the documents, why he will not do so.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am not going to give way, because I am going to end my remarks. Clearly, we can see tremendous passion from the Opposition for this issue to be resolved.

13:40

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on securing this important debate about working conditions in the 1970s. It is about a time when, in that three-year period, 571 people were killed and 224,000 were injured on building sites. It is about an industrial campaign to ensure that those working conditions changed. It is about a trial that led to the results that my hon. Friend outlined. It is about a campaign, to which I pay tribute, that has lasted now for 40 years to get documents into the public domain to ensure that people have the full facts on why action was taken and why the judgment was made.

The motion states simply that the Government should release the papers referring to all aspects of the trial and the case. The motion is a fair one. I say to both the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that the judgment of this House can be made, as can the judgment of the public, on the information contained in that simple motion, which calls on the Government to reverse their position as a matter of urgency and to release the papers.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I will not give way. A lot of Members want to speak and time is pressing.

This is a simple motion, but for my constituents it is not a simple matter, nor has it been for the past 40 years. For my constituent Arthur Murray it meant six months in prison and a lifetime of concern about the impact of that sentence. For my constituent John McKinsie Jones it meant nine months in prison and concern about his employability, his future and his peace of mind. For my constituent Terry Renshaw it meant a four-month suspended sentence for two years, which has had an impact on his life. They are currently bringing a case for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to consider their convictions to see if they were sound. The material that is not in the public domain could well be relevant to the case, and that is why they want it to be released.

I have written to the Secretary of State for Justice on several occasions. When I was a Minister in the Justice Department, I pressed, as a constituency MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to release the information. The judgment was made, under the Labour Government, to release the information in 2012. Being the kind, open soul that I am, I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), in 2010 to ask whether he could confirm that it would be released in 2012. He wrote back to me on 8 November 2010, saying that the “blanket” covering was still in place until 2012. I wrote to him again on 23 March 2011, and he said he was reviewing the matter and would make a decision. I wrote again on 20 November 2012, and was told by the now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling):

“On 19 December 2011 Kenneth Clarke signed a new instrument which records that he has given his approval for the retention of the records”.

The retained records include:

“a paragraph from a memorandum from Sir Michael Hanley, Director General of the Security Service to Sir John at the Cabinet Office…a copy of the report which was enclosed with the…memorandum…a paragraph from…Sir John Hunt to a Mr Armstrong dated 13 January”

and

“a paragraph from a memorandum to Sir John Hunt relating to this report”.

It is important that this information be in the public domain. The Government are currently reviewing the 30-year rule and reducing it to 20 years, yet in this case, when there is 40 years of information, they are seeking to extend the period, and so withhold the information, until 2022. That seems unfair.

My colleague Terry Renshaw has been a councillor for years, he has served on the police authority, he is a lecturer, he has been mayor of the town I live in, he is a respected citizen, yet even today they will not let him into the United States of America because of that conviction. My constituent Arthur Murray, a decent man, served six months in prison, and made the point to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made about John Platt-Mills, who said:

“The trial of the Shrewsbury Pickets is the only case I know where the government has ordered a prosecution in defiance of the advice of senior police and prosecution authorities.”

My constituent John McKinsie Jones said only last year:

“I have lived for almost 40 years with the stigma of being arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for conspiracy. My family were devastated… Like a lot of the other pickets I had never been in trouble in my life. We were completely innocent of these charges. We were branded as criminals by the media. We were blacklisted”.

This debate is about the lives of people in my constituency; it is about the lives of people who dedicated their lives to the trade union movement and who were only doing their jobs. I want these papers released. I might have to leave before the end of the debate, because of a long-standing constituency engagement this evening, but this debate has my support, and my constituents have my support.

[Sir Bob Russell]

rose—

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I call Dennis Skinner. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I will call the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) next.

13:52

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Well, that has put the Lib Dems in their place, hasn’t it? I have always wanted to do it. I know Clegg’s got a sour face—[Interruption.]

Anyway, we live in the age of transparency, don’t we? We have transparency coming out of every pore. Every day I turn up in the House of Commons, from all sides I am assailed by people saying, “We need transparency.” At the beginning, I was unsure what it meant; I am sure now. It is a class thing. It applies only to the things that affect us, but it does not give us an inch when we are asking for something from the other side. We can have transparency about hospitals, care homes, schools, and everything else, but not about this. Isn’t it strange that we are being told again today, by this tin-pot coalition, that we cannot have it? [Laughter.] It really is tin-pot, although I know the last Labour Government did not pull their weight either. It has to be put on the record.

But this is a debate about class, and we do not get many of those in here. Every so often, it erupts, and we talk about class. That is what this is. It was the same with Hillsborough, when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) got that debate, and it was the same with Thatcher and the funeral and all the rest of it. I do not want to go into that, but the truth is that it is very rare. Here are a few people who were on the picket line, they ordered a bus from a bus company, and they talk about conspiracies—all the records are there! I know it was not the age of social media, Twitter and God knows what else—if it had been, they would have won, because they would all have had a mobile phone, with a camera, and they could have took some pictures. Yes, it’s about class, and that is why we are here today, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and other colleagues.

I was here in the 1970s, and I could not believe it the moment I got to London: we were on picket lines, and winning—winning! It does not happen very often, so we have to treasure every moment. My father worked for 50 years in the pits, and when we won the 1972 strike, he said, “It’s the first time in my life.” Yet there is all this talk, somehow or other, about workers having power. It is not true, and this is another example where they do not have it, or otherwise the papers would have been released and, what’s more, this whole episode would not have begun. It began because of the climate of 1970 onwards. The establishment, the Heath Government, were defeated by the miners in 1972, after a seven-week strike. It is true there was a bit of pushing and shoving, but by and large it was a relatively peaceful affair. The police were wearing long stockings underneath their trousers. I told Tom Swain, and he said, “I’m getting a pair.” That’s what it was like, by and large.

What happened then? The Upper Clyde shipbuilders had a sit-in and won. Then there was Vic Turner and Bernie Steer saying, “We’re going to put some pickets on down at the docks”—at what is now Covent Garden—and they got put in Pentonville jail. The Industrial Relations Act had just got Royal Assent, but what happened? After Vic Turner was put in jail with his mates, the Official Solicitor had to turn up, representing all the echelons of the establishment, saying, “They won’t purge their own contempt. We’ve got to do it for them.” We said, “Yes, but at a price”, and so they had to kick the Act into the long grass.

In the middle of all this, some people, such as those I should not speak about in the Gallery, decided also to battle for better wages. They had never had great wages, but UCATT and the building workers had had a lot of injuries, so they decided in that climate to take a chance and fight for better wages and conditions. That is all it was. The evidence was there, as we have heard, but the establishment decided that somebody needed a lesson: “We’ll take these on. We lost to the miners. We lost to Upper Clyde. We lost the Industrial Relations Act. We’ve got to have a victory.” That was what this was all about, and let no one kid themselves: when the echelons of the state decide to take action, the judiciary join them, and I do not care what their names are. It has been apparent for so many years, and it is still apparent today.

My time is running out. I compliment all those who have taken part, but I want to pay my final compliment to that face I saw in Lincoln prison, Des Warren, fighting the establishment, and when I call for transparency, it is the face of Des Warren—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

[Sir Bob Russell]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Sir Bob Russell, I apologise about earlier. As the House will know, we alternate between sides. Follow that, in six minutes.

13:58

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) went before me. My only regret is that he was not gracious enough to me, given that we are almost family. It is not generally known that my nephew, who lives in Clay Cross, is the partner of the hon. Gentleman’s second cousin. If they got married, we would be related by marriage—but we are still working on that.

I would like to welcome the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), to the Dispatch Box. I am sure he would have wished for a better occasion to make his debut, but there we are—we have to take the rough with the smooth. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on his new position.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has made the most powerful speech so far. The motion before us is quite clear. I intervened on the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). I do not want to rehearse here this afternoon incidents from 40 years ago, but we must have all the relevant papers published. It has been acknowledged that successive Governments—perhaps the motion should have incorporated the term “successive Governments”—have failed to do so. It is also important to recognise, as the right hon. Member for Delyn said, how many advances have been made in the safety of building sites over the last four decades. The trade unions can certainly take credit for that, as can anyone involved in health and safety and, indeed, employers. When the London Olympic stadium was built, not a single life was lost. We should contrast that with what is happening at other major sporting venues around the world. Let us acknowledge the positives here.

I conclude briefly by saying that many lessons have been learned, not least in health and safety. We need all these papers to be released. If there is a silver lining to this dark cloud, if it had not been for the Shrewsbury 24, we would never have had the brilliant comedy actor, Mr Tomlinson, on our screens.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I am reducing the time limit further to five minutes. I am doing my best to fit in all those who want to speak. I ask Members to pay attention and to assist colleagues to make their points; it is not necessary to take five minutes, but five minutes is the maximum from now on.

14:01

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

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on securing this debate. I must say from the beginning that I am not a man of violence, but the contribution from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) certainly stretched my tolerance level. He reminded us exactly what the Tories are about and what they think the workers should be—seen and not heard, shall we say.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Sheridan]

No. The hon. Gentleman has had enough time.

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the outside world if I sound somewhat repetitive, but I genuinely believe that the more people that say this and listen to it, the more likely we are eventually to get somewhere on the issue of transparency. If we look at the Press Gallery, we see that there is very little interest in this issue from the press—apart from, of course, the regular and reliable Morning Star. For some reason, other newspapers, apart from some in the Trinity Mirror group, are not covering it.

In a week when we have discussed the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, we can see how difficult it is, when it comes to what happened 40 years ago, to get transparency from this coalition Government. It is somewhat ironic that we are still discussing this issue in 2014.

To reflect on the Shrewsbury 24 issue, the conditions that existed in the building industry in the 1970s were a blight on our society. Sites with hundreds of thousands of men were given two rat-infested, filthy toilets. There was nowhere to change, so if workers got soaked in the rain, they would either have to go home and lose their pay, or continue to work—sodden and freezing. The health and safety conditions were appalling. In 1973 alone, there were 231 fatal accidents in construction. When talking about this issue, I am reminded of why these people were victimised—it was because they were raising serious health and safety concerns to ensure that workers were safe in the workplace. That is why the then employers turned against the trade unions—to make sure that health and safety issues were not raised at the appropriate time. The employers’ agenda was not about looking after their workers.

We look on some of the working conditions in some countries with disgust, and we call on UK-based companies working in those other countries to look at their supply chains and improve their human rights records. The Shrewsbury 24 were picketing in conditions that we would be horrified at today, so the calm and dignified protest they led is to be commended. It was a difficult task—something that has not been repeated—trying to organise building workers who often moved to new temporary sites and it was a struggle to organise them on account of that. The Shrewsbury 24 wanted to highlight the issues caused by colleagues “on the lump”, but they did not get violent and did nothing illegal. At this stage, I am reminded of what the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is doing on the issue of blacklisting. Only yesterday I listened to some of the evidence that the trade unions gave to that Select Committee. Even today, trade union organisers are refused access to building sites, simply because they want to raise health and safety issues that the employer does not want to listen to. Ordinary trade unions are still struggling to get recognition.

The Shrewsbury 24 hired six coaches and picketed large sites around Shrewsbury, which were chosen because they were not as well organised as some places in the bigger cities. It was peaceful—there were no cautions and no arrests. They had the permission of site owners. Chief Superintendent Meredith even shook the hand of Des Warren and thanked him for the co-operation of the UCATT and the then Transport and General Workers Union.

For that reason, when 24 men were arrested on conspiracy charges months later, they were shocked and confused. Six were sent to jail, and over four decades later, the pickets still deny that they were guilty of any of the charges levelled against them. The sentences had a devastating impact on these men. While in prison, Des Warren was regularly forced to drink “liquid cosh”, which has been blamed for his death from Parkinson’s disease in 2004. These men struggled to get work afterwards.

Let me finish by saying that if there were any sort of national security issue, it would never be viewed as acceptable in this day and age that information for which people are looking should be denied to them.

14:06

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

What lies behind this motion is a belief by many that there has been an abuse of state power and a subversion of the legal process. Successive Governments have said repeatedly that there are just a handful of files relating to the Shrewsbury trials. I would like to focus today on just one single file—PREM 15/2011, with which I hope the Minister can acquaint himself. It is described as “Woodrow Wyatt’s TV programme, ‘Red Under the Bed’”. On 27 August 2012, the National Archives website said that this file was “retained” by the Cabinet Office under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958. Why would such a file be kept back when it relates to a current affairs programme that was broadcast on ITV in November 1973? Following a freedom of information request by the Shrewsbury 24 campaign’s incisive researcher in August 2013, the Cabinet Office finally conceded and released some of the papers.

Why is this file relevant? It is relevant because the film was broadcast on 13 November 1973, the day on which the prosecution completed its case against the pickets. It was featured in the TV listing section of the local evening newspaper, the Shropshire Star, which would have been read by many of the jurors. The film included a highly tendentious commentary by Woodrow Wyatt, interspersed with footage that showed the following: two of the six defendants, John Carpenter and Des Warren; Shrewsbury Crown Court, surrounded by police officers, with a group of demonstrators attending a meeting nearby; images of a march through Shrewsbury in which the defendants could be made out; violence and damage alleged to have been caused by pickets on building sites during the national building strike of 1972; and violence and damage alleged to have been caused by pickets during a recent coal strike and a recent dock strike.

The next day, the defence applied to the judge for the television company to be held in contempt. The judge viewed the film and dismissed the application, even criticising the defence for raising the point. The file shows that the film, which lasted for one hour, was followed by a studio discussion of 30 minutes. Interestingly, the discussion was not broadcast in every ITV region—Granada, for example—but it was transmitted by ATV, the region covering Shrewsbury. The final words of that discussion were from the then Conservative MP Geoffrey Stewart-Smith. He was asked by the studio chairman, the late Richard Whiteley:

“Can you give me one example in 1973 of blatant communist influence?”

Stewart-Smith replies

“The violence in the building strike was called by a group, The Building Workers Charter, operating in defiance of the union leadership indulging in violence and flying pickets and this is an example of these people operating, opposing free trade unions”.

Can you imagine anything more blatantly prejudicial to a trial than that, Madam Deputy Speaker? Imagine what the reaction would be today. Just think of any current high-profile trial, and what a defence team would say, and how that would be reported in the print media now.

We have to ask ourselves why that film was made, and why it was shown on that particular date. It is my contention that the file reveals the highest level of collusion between the Government, the security services and the producers of the film. The first document in the file is a memo from Mr Thomas Barker of the Information Research Department to a Mr Norman Reddaway. For the benefit of younger Members, I should explain that the IRD was formed after the second world war as a covert anti-communist propaganda unit operating within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and was closed down in the late 1970s. Mr Barker boasts:

“We had a discreet but considerable hand in this programme....In general, this film, given national networking, can only have done good.”

He praises the studio discussion after the broadcast. The file contains more documents, including a note from the Prime Minister, Ted Heath, supporting the film after being sent a copy of the transcript by the Cabinet Secretary.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Is it possible to view the documentary now, or is it banned?

[Mr Watson]

It is not possible to view it. However, the file reveals that

“In February”

—that is, in February 1973—

“Mr Wyatt approached us direct for help. We consulted the Department of Employment and the Security Service through Mr Conrad Heron's Group, which has been meeting approximately fortnightly for the past year.”

So many meetings; so much consultation. Where are the documents relating to that? Were those people involved in the discussions that led to the decision to prosecute the pickets? If it had happened today, there would be outrage in the House.

Having seen the transcript of the film, the then Prime Minister replied to the Cabinet Secretary:

“We want as much as possible of this.”

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend may not recall that at that time a number of employers’ organisations, including Aims of Industry, were trying to influence industrial relations.

[Mr Watson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

So we have evidence that the Government and the security services were working closely with television production companies, newspapers and secretive organisations that were the forerunners of today’s blacklisters to produce propaganda to discredit trade unionists. The present Government posted a response to the e-petition on the website, claiming that the withholding of the information was due to an “intelligence and security instrument”. Why? This was a strike organised by building workers 40 years ago with the aim of improving their pay and conditions of work.

If Members want to know the thinking of industrialists at the time, they should read Lord McAlpine’s book “The Servant”. He wrote that the servant

“must have his own network of informants and men who will assist him. The servant must always know how to use the network of the State.

Dealing in deceit, as the servant must, great caution must be required. Avoid small deceits: like barnacles on the bottom of a ship, they build in the minds of people whom you may need to convince in a large deceit”.

What greater deceit can Members imagine than depriving those young men of their freedom and liberty?

The Stasi published their files after the Berlin wall came down in 1989. I think that we can publish ours now.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am now reducing the speaking time limit to four minutes. Everyone who wishes to speak will be able to do so if all Members stick to that limit.

14:14

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The Johannesburg principles were written a long time ago, but let me quote from them now. This is what was said about freedom of information and the state:

“A restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to protect a country's existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force, whether from an external source, such as a military threat, or an internal source, such as incitement to violent overthrow of the government...In particular, a restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate if its genuine purpose or demonstrable effect is to protect interests unrelated to national security, including, for example, to protect a government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing, or to conceal information about the functioning of its public institutions, or to entrench a particular ideology, or to suppress industrial unrest.”

That was not written about this country. It was written in Johannesburg about South Africa under apartheid, about North Korea, about China, and about all the rest of them. However, it applies to this Government now.

That Tory from Aldershot has gone now, but when he quoted from his letter, he forgot to mention the capacity in which he wrote it. At the time, he was secretary of the Society for Individual Freedom. He did not tell us what that organisation was about, but I can tell the House that it worked with BOSS, the South African Bureau of State Security. A book has been written about it, and this is how it described that Aldershot MP’s organisation:

“it’s almost certainly a British intelligence front organization which is mainly used for disseminating Establishment-type propaganda.”

That was in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) went on to form a new organisation called “Freedom Under Law”, along with Francis Bennion, to counter anti-apartheid. And what did Francis Bennion do in 1972 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who was campaigning against apartheid? He took out a private prosecution against him for criminal conspiracy. This is what has been going on, and this is why people do not want those files to come out.

Who was it who funded the Economic League’s secret committee—a secret committee in a secret organisation? McAlpine. Even I was put on a blacklist. Who put me on it? I believe that it was one Russell Walters, who today works as Tory researcher, and who was chief of staff for that would-be Tory leader, the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). He was working for the Economic League. There was also a bloke called Ned Walsh, a liar, who said throughout these events that he worked for the unions. In fact, during the 1960s and 1970s he was working for the Economic League, infiltrating the unions. That is the conspiracy.

[Katy Clark]

I am intervening on my hon. Friend because I think that he may need some more time. Does he think that this quotation from Construction News, published on 17 December 1970—a very long time ago—gives some indication of the power and influence of the construction industry? The paper said of a private Christmas dinner organised by McAlpine in 1977:

“Anyone who can hold a private party and make it virtually impossible to get a Cabinet quorum cannot be without influence of friends.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman may need more time, but it will come out of the hon. Lady’s time, because the winding-up speeches must start at 2.40 pm.

[John Mann]

The fact is that McAlpine was based in that part of the world, and it is no coincidence that this was picked on.

We know what these people do. They did the same during the miners’ strike. What they do is randomly pick out people and claim conspiracy, which is exactly what they tried to do to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath and others in the anti-apartheid movement. That is the mindset of some of these people. They believe that they have some sort of supreme knowledge, and then they claim to defend freedom.

These people are not the friends of freedom; these people are the enemies of freedom. That is why those Johannesburg principles were written, and that is why they apply not just to South Africa under apartheid, not just to North Korea and the lunatic running it, not just to China and the repression of working people there, but to this country and to western democracies. Freedom is about the right to go about your business. It is about the right to engage in protest, including industrial protest. It is about the right to hold your Government to account, and to ensure that if there are documents out there, they are brought to light. Such documents are already slowly emerging. We have seen the documents about Hillsborough, and in future we will see documents about Orgreave and the miners’ strike, and many, many more. There is an information revolution going on in this country, because people are fed up with the secrecy of the state and those misfits around it who set up organisations claiming conspiracies when there is no conspiracy because it suits their political ends—and some of them clearly even participate in events like this but are still elected to this Parliament.

If this is a coalition Government, this Liberal Minister needs to demonstrate that he is part of the coalition. The Liberals have always told us they stand for individual freedoms. Well, prove it; release these documents. These people who have had to fight against this for years deserve it, but there is a bigger cause, too: the rest of us. This is about defining freedom in this country. That is what this debate is about, and why this Liberal Minister has to act.

14:20

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The lack of Members on the Government Benches shows exactly how much interest there is in this topic from this coalition Government of Tories and Liberals.

This Shrewsbury 24 debacle represents a catastrophic and deliberate miscarriage of justice by the state against working individuals. I say again for the record that this was deliberate. This attack on the Shrewsbury 24 was a deliberate, calculated miscarriage of justice. It is a catalogue of deceit, deception, secrecy and discrimination worthy of the best of the best North Korean governmental political plots. It truly is a must-read true-life story of thriller proportions. The covert, politically inspired interference of faceless decision-makers, be they politicians, civil servants, police or the judiciary, made life hell for ordinary hard-working people whose only crime was to dare to take industrial action against the mega cash-rich building companies of that time.

These people—the Shrewsbury pickets—were fighting for £30 for 30 hours and better health and safety on the building sites, where, as has been mentioned on more than one occasion, 571 people in the construction industry were killed in three years. Is that not fair? Is that not what we should be seeking in a modern-day society—health and safety, preventing people from being abused and killed when they take their sandwiches to work and want to return to see their families at night? Is that a crime? Should they have been punished—should they have been imprisoned, as the six Shrewsbury pickets were? The answer to that is of course not.

I have tremendous experience of picketing, and I am proud of having been a picket during many disputes. I witnessed what happened on the picket lines during the miners strike. It was absolutely disgraceful. What we have seen in the last two or three weeks is again a Government refusing to allow papers—confidential and secret papers—relating to that dispute to be released. What we have seen is absolutely ludicrous. There has not been the outrage there should be, but we have seen that senior Cabinet Ministers in a previous Government and a Prime Minister—Thatcher—stood at the Dispatch Box and deliberately misled the Commons, and deliberately misled the Government. Where is the public outcry from the press? There is not one, because they are not interested in ordinary people.

A lot can be said about this but I would like to finish on this point. We cannot even begin to understand how these men and their families felt when they were hammered by the state—by the Government. They were offered lesser charges and they would have been freed. They stood by their principles so that people in the future would benefit, and they went to prison. We cannot begin to think what it was like for these people, who could have been free—“£50 fine and you can go home tonight and be home by 3 o’clock.” That was the agreement, but they stood by their principles. We cannot begin to imagine how they suffered in their time in prison.

Let me say a word on Des Warren, who was treated very badly in his time in prison. The liquid cosh killed him and as a result we are where we are today.

14:24

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and our other hon. Friends on securing this debate.

It is important to say, as all Members have said so far, that this is not about defending violence or picket line violence. It is about justice. This is about making the case to publish documents so that the truth can come out. I believe that case has been made overwhelmingly by Opposition colleagues who have spoken and it has even been agreed by Conservative colleagues. The only reason not to publish is that it would prove the political interference and perhaps the source of some of the evidence that was offered against the individuals.

It is important to remember that these were different times, different issues, different perspectives. The establishment was paranoid. It was not just the Tory establishment. Harold Wilson saw political manipulation in the NUS strike in the ’60s. That is when the NUS was the National Union of Seamen, not the National Union of Students. This is not just a Tory crisis, therefore. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said this period saw the height of trade union membership and power, with working people trying to come to terms with the UK’s industrial decline and trying to hold on to what they had in the face of the establishment coming at them.

Times were difficult and the establishment felt threatened. The Shrewsbury 24 came in the wake of the Pentonville Five and the collapse of the industrial relations court. My hon. Friend mentioned Vic Turner. He was one of my councillors. He was mayor of Newham. When I knew him he was a very gentle and decent man, and he was one of the five who were locked up. Incidentally, for the information of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), I will say that when I was the secretary of the Scottish nationalist trade union association I issued a statement supporting the release of the Pentonville Five and was contacted by Edinburgh and told to withdraw the press release or be expelled from the SNP. That was the end of my romance with the Scottish National party.

In construction, the lack of a structured, organised business caused industrial carnage as many colleagues have mentioned, with nearly 600 dead on building sites in three years. The lump set worker against worker and kept the industry in the dark ages. They were dark times, indeed, not only for the country but for individuals thrust into the front-line—the Five, the 24 and others. The ’70s was a decade of massive industrial unrest; I am old enough to have been on strike in the ’70s with the fire service—against a Labour Government. It is surely time for the Government to come clean. The Government should publish the papers—I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say—so that these decent men and their families, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has outlined, can understand what happened and why it happened and hopefully be able to put behind them what I believe will be shown to be another shameful part of our history.

14:27

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) for securing this debate. I also want to thank the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)—I am delighted he is back in the Chamber—for his stout defence of exploitative and abusive employment practices and his argument for sustaining one of the most grievous miscarriages of justice in living memory, because it reminds me of exactly why I came into politics.

This is an immensely significant case and one that has already shone a light into some of the darkest recesses of the British establishment. What is abundantly clear is that this case will continue to be a running sore until such times as all Government and Cabinet and other documents over the relevant period from the early ’70s to date in connection with this matter are released. The sooner the nettle is grasped the better.

The Government’s determination to keep documents secret and to keep information from the appellants casts a very dark and long shadow over our democracy and serves only to heighten concerns that there has indeed been a conspiracy—not a conspiracy to cause affray at a building site, but one politically to engineer criminal charges and to interfere with the criminal justice system. It can hardly be more serious.

This campaign will ultimately succeed, and when the full truth emerges it will not be a good day for this country. The longer it goes on, the worse it will get. It is a travesty that men have already gone to their graves without this matter having been resolved. The campaigners’ case is simple: they were wholly innocent of the charges made against them. The dispute had come to an end, and no complaint had been made about their conduct at the time. The subsequent investigations many months later, the prosecution and then the sentences imposed upon them were draconian, wholly inappropriate and, worst of all, politically motivated. I want to spend some time talking about the sacrifices that the men made, but time does not permit me to do so.

At this remove, the demands of the workers seem so modest and reasonable, but in the dark days of 1972 they were seen as other things altogether. However, their cause was just and right. They vehemently opposed and exposed the abuses and exploitative and blackmailing practices endemic in the construction industry, which provided workers with absolutely no security of employment. They were working on the lump for appalling pay and, as has been said, fatalities were a regular occurrence. Robert Carr wrote a letter at the time. He said:

“I intend once again to draw the attention of Chief Constables to the provision of the law and discuss with them what further action they might take to defeat such violence and intimidation in industrial disputes.”

So much for the operational independence of the police. The Attorney-General wrote to him at the time and said:

“A number of instances … have been submitted to me recently in which the intimidation consisted of threatening words and in which there was no evidence against any particular person of violence or damage to property.”

He recommended that proceedings should not be instituted. We have clear, unambiguous advice from the country’s leading law officer that proceedings should not be instituted, yet despite that, charges were laid and prosecutions taken. He was also of the view that a jury trial would lead to an acquittal, so Treasury Counsel advised that the principle of jury trial should be abandoned.

It is scandalous that successive Governments have refused to release all the papers about this matter. We are led to believe that it would compromise national security. It is much more likely that individuals and previous Governments will be ashamed and embarrassed by their dreadful cover-up, and the time has come for the Government to do the right thing. These men and their families have waited far too long for the truth to come out and they should wait no longer. As Ricky Tomlinson himself might say, “Guilty? My goodness me, nothing could be further from the truth.”

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am taking the time limit down to three minutes to get three more speakers in before the wind-ups start.

14:31

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and comrade the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on securing this vital debate. I regret that he is not in his place at the moment. I was reminded of Aneurin Bevan’s description of the Tory party when I listened to the shameful contribution from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). The way in which this dispute was handled by the Government of the day and subsequent Governments represents a disgraceful and shameful chapter in the long history of hostility towards working people on the part of the Conservative party.

My dad was involved in that building workers strike, and he could well have been one of the victims of the Tory party who were sent to prison for their principles. The following year I started as an apprentice bricklayer in the building trade. Hon. Friends have already pointed to the 571 fatalities between 1970 and 1973 and the 224,000 industrial injuries that took place in the construction trade. I was one of those statistics, because health and safety on the building sites that I worked on in 1973 was disgraceful. That was what the strike was all about. It was about decent pay—£30 a week. It is not much to ask for, for crying out loud. It was about health and safety on building sites to protect young apprentices such as me. I could have been killed because there was no handrail on the scaffolding.

The strike was also about the lump—the disgraceful lump that was endemic in the building trade at that time. We had a vindictive Tory Government. I will not repeat the comments that have been eloquently made by my hon. Friends about the disgraceful treatment of those pickets, but they were charged with intimidation. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. The people who were responsible for intimidation were the vindictive Tory Government, who sent ordinary working people to prison for standing up for their rights, for their comrades, for decent working conditions.

So of course the papers should be released. That is the very minimum that should happen. The convictions that were imposed on those brave trade unionists—one of whom, Ricky Tomlinson, I am proud to say, is in the public gallery now, although I know I should not mention it—should be overturned. I hope that we hear the Minister support that when he gets to his feet.

14:34

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

This is a highly politicised debate. It touches on the desirability and necessity of workers organising themselves in the workplace to ensure that they are treated well and have decent health and safety and terms and conditions. It has been clear from the speeches that there are different views about that on either side of the House.

Colleagues have been correct to try to explain the context of the industrial dispute. My family were some of those involved in the dispute. My grandfather, Barney Davies, who is still alive, and Larry McKay, my uncle, were members of the Transport and General Workers Union and worked in the construction industry all their lives. They were clear with me why they thought it was important to have strong trade unions in the construction industry, in particular for health and safety. Indeed, they supported the closed shop, because they felt it was the only way that progress would be made in the construction industry.

It is necessary to say clearly that this type of organisation and the 1972 strike were seen as a significant threat to those who owned the construction industry and made huge profits from it. The more we find out about the Shrewsbury 24, the more murky it gets. The motion today is simple: it calls for the release of the documents. It will be interesting to see how the Minister responds to that request. It is difficult to see after 40 years how they can contain anything that seriously threatens national security. If we are not successful now in getting the documents, the issue will not be looked at again until 50 years after the dispute. Some of the people directly involved have already died, one of them probably as a direct result of drug-induced Parkinson’s and the treatment that he received against his wishes in prison. I would ask the Minister to look at this seriously. If he believes in freedom of information and transparency, he should please take action to release the papers.

14:37

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

I shall give the last word in this debate to the person who cannot be here, which is Dessie Warren. Dessie went into the dock against the advice of his lawyers. They advised him, “Dessie if you go in, you will most probably be sentenced double,” and that is most probably what happened, but he addressed the central question we have asked here today: was there a conspiracy? Let me use Dessie’s words:

“Was there a conspiracy? Ten members of the jury have said there was. There was a conspiracy, but not by the pickets. The conspiracy began with the miners giving the government a good hiding last year. It developed when the government was forced to perform legal gymnastics in getting five dockers out of jail after they had only just been put there. The conspiracy was between the Home Secretary, the employers and the police. It was not done with a nod and a wink. It was conceived after pressure from Tory Members of Parliament who demanded changes in picketing laws.”

He was asked about the law. He said:

“the law is, quite clearly, an instrument of the state, to be used in the interests of a tiny minority against the majority. It is biased; it is class law, and nowhere has that been demonstrated more than in the prosecution case in this trial. The very nature of the charges, the delving into ancient Acts of Parliament, dredging up conspiracy, shows this to be so.”

Then he was asked about intimidation. He said:

“The jury in this trial were asked to look upon the word ‘intimidation’ as having the ordinary everyday meaning. My interpretation is ‘to make timid’, or ‘to dispirit’, and when the pickets came to this town to speak to the building workers it was not with the intention of intimidating them. We came here with the intention of instilling the trade union spirit into them, and not to make them timid, but to give them the courage to fight the intimidation of the employers in this area.”

That is the spirit that has been instilled in us for the past 30 years, all the way through this campaign. It is also the spirit that has been instilled in all those others, including Ricky Tomlinson, Eileen Turnbull and the others who have been campaigning over this period. In that spirit, we will not let go until the truth is revealed, until we have full openness and transparency, until those people’s names are cleared and until it is accepted that this was a class attack. It was a class attack involving the intimidation of a group of workers to ensure that others did not fight in what was, and is, a class struggle to improve wages and conditions and, yes, to assert some sort of power and control over people’s working conditions. I support that struggle; that is what this debate today is all about.

14:39

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), on his new position. It has been a long time coming. I hope we can have a constructive working relationship, and I look forward to hearing his views on a number of issues, not least the damaging effects of the Government’s complete dismantling of legal aid. I know he was highly critical of that himself until very recently.

This has been a powerful and emotional, but reasoned, debate that does credit to everyone who has spoken from these Benches and to the House. For 40 years, the treatment of the Shrewsbury 24 has raised questions that successive Governments have not been prepared to answer, and those who were convicted and their families, friends and supporters have campaigned for justice, transparency and fairness. It is right that this issue should be debated fully here and that the House should place demands on the current Government—or, failing that, the next Labour Government—to disclose the remaining documents relating to the case. I hope that there will be some movement on that from the Minister this afternoon, rather than just a repeat of the recital of the Secretary of State’s view that the Government wish to park the issue until 2022.

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing the debate. I also want to thank those Opposition Members who have spoken today, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who spoke on behalf of his constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has tabled an early-day motion on this subject that has so far attracted 62 signatures, mainly of Labour MPs but also of six Members from other parties.

Most of all, I would like to acknowledge the tireless work over those 40 years of the campaigners. They include the late Dessie Warren and Ricky Tomlinson, who has proved such an effective figurehead and given the campaign some of its best soundbites, including

“a threat to social security perhaps, national security never”.

They include Eileen Turnbull, whose six years of painstaking research has already uncovered many troubling facts in the case, Unite the union, which has offered much in the way of practical and moral support, Thompsons solicitors and Len McCluskey, who has taken a close personal interest in achieving justice for the 24. They also include the tens of thousands of trade unionists who have marched, protested, and signed the petition that led to today’s debate.

This shows the trade union movement at its democratic and campaigning best. In that sense, history is repeating itself, because it was the successful national building workers’ strike of 1972 against the appalling health and safety record of the industry and the exploitation of lump labour that led to the arrest and prosecution of the Shrewsbury 24. In an era before the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, 200 building workers were being killed on sites every year.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Slaughter]

Given the time, I am reluctant to give way.

Summary dismissal and blacklisting were commonplace for anyone who complained about poor pay and working conditions. After years of refusal to act by Government and employers, trade unions across the sector organised the biggest national strike since 1926. They were calling for fair terms and conditions, fair pay and safe and secure working practices. I do not intend to repeat the story of the strike, the arrests, the trials and the subsequent attempts to find justice, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and others have already described. What I would like to do is explain why this issue from 40 years ago still matters not just to those directly affected, but to all of us in this House and in the country.

The picketing that led to the charges was peaceful and heavily policed, and it passed without incident or comment. The arrests months later, the conduct of the trials, the use of conspiracy charges, the sentences handed down, the involvement of the Government and the close relations between senior figures in the Government and the building employers all raise suspicions that these were not normal proceedings. The use of section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold selective documents, the continuing refusal of the present Government to engage with the campaigners, and the postponement of consideration for another 10 years also suggest that there is a desire to sweep this issue under the carpet. Whether that suggestion is right or wrong could be determined by releasing the papers. That would also provide closure for those convicted, of whom all those who are still alive are of pension age.

I would like to ask the Minister these questions. If he is not prepared to agree to the motion today, will he explain more fully why? Will he tell us how many documents are being withheld, what issues they deal with and why—specifically, rather than using civil service catch-all jargon—they are deemed not to be publishable? I get the impression that this is an embarrassment, an irrelevance or an inconvenience to the Secretary of State. To the 24, it is a matter that has dominated their lives and that continues to do so.

This is not an issue only of historical importance; it continues to affect those convicted today. It affects them in practical ways, such as through the travel restrictions we have heard about. It affects them emotionally, and it also affects them because they are men who have an ingrained sense of justice who in many cases have devoted their lives to the service of their communities. It matters to them, and to Labour Members. It should also matter to the Minister and to his party, which, whatever its historic antipathy to the trade unions, has often claimed the moral high ground on civil liberties and transparency issues.

Sadly, the Minister is now part of a Government with a terrible record on such matters. Under the coalition we have seen: an expansion of the use of secret courts across the civil justice system; attacks on the Human Rights Act and the European convention; the use of judicial review being severely curtailed; unprecedented cuts in legal aid and advice; and restriction on access to justice for everyone from unfairly dismissed employees to mesothelioma victims. And yesterday, we had the absolute disgrace of the gagging Bill, which threatens to shackle and silence the voluntary sector and the trade union movement under the guise of tackling lobbyists. We have seen blacklisting continue as it did in 1970s. We have also seen a Government more closely aligned with special interests and corporate greed, and less on the side of employees or consumers, than the Heath or even the Thatcher Governments.

In trade union history, the case of the Shrewsbury 24 stands alongside the miners’ strike, the Taff Vale case and Tolpuddle as examples of how the state, and the Conservative party and its allies and funders in the corporate sector, use the law and officers of the law to restrict and subdue organised labour. This is a struggle that has gone on for hundreds of years, and it will continue far into the future.

In his autobiography, Ricky Tomlinson asks:

“Will the day come when it will be a crime in itself to be a member of a trade union?”

Certainly there has not been such a sustained attack on trade union rights by the governing party and its allies in the media for 30 years. If the Minister wishes to deny that, or if he wishes not to judge the events that led to the conviction of the Shrewsbury 24 but to give others the ability to do so, he should agree to this motion, release the withheld documents and show that his Government have nothing to hide. Ricky Tomlinson also said recently that it felt as though the Tories were waiting for the 24 to die before they would reveal the truth. The Minister might not be responsible for the Tory party, but he is responsible for freedom of information and for upholding transparency in government. He and his colleagues should support the motion today.

14:49

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

I congratulate sincerely the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on initiating the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on agreeing to it. This is exactly the sort of issue that we should debate, and I respect entirely the views expressed on a very important matter, which, at its heart, is about the freedom to see documents even though they relate to events 40 years ago.

I am aware that the Government have been noticing this campaign’s growing momentum over the years. This is the first debate on this issue that Parliament has had in either House. Questions have been asked and letters written, but we have never had a debate, so I am very pleased and honoured to reply to it.

I am very conscious of my responsibility, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) for his kind words of welcome. I am a Justice Minister, responsible for freedom of information and the National Archives. I believe in justice. In our Department, we want maximum freedom of information, and we want maximum revelation in the National Archives of documents that have been in the public domain. So I am very clear about where we should be going and what the principles are.

I do not see it as my job to be here to defend the Government in the 1970s or any political party. That is not part of my brief.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Oh yes it is.

[Simon Hughes]

No, it is not. I am here to deal with an issue that, if I may just make the obvious and, I hope, only party political point, was not dealt with differently by Labour or Conservative Administrations—a point that has been accepted by colleagues around the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

I shall be as quick as I can, and if colleagues will accept—

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No, I want to try to be helpful, and out of respect for the hon. Member for Blaydon, let me, please, unusually for me, be uninterrupted; I want to respond to as much as I can.

May I tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and other colleagues that, not just as the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, I completely understand the issue to do with health and safety and decent wages generally and in the building industry in particular? I have campaigned on this issue. I understand the dreadful health and safety record in the past. Strong trade unions, particularly in the building industry over the past 40 years, were hugely important in ensuring that wages and conditions were better, which, thank God, they are now. I pay tribute to those who were part of that effort.

At the end of this episode, there were convictions for affray, unlawful assembly and conspiracy to intimidate. They are serious offences. They have led to people going to prison. I will return in a second to how the justice issues may be addressed. I know about the intensity of people’s views. I know about the efforts made to get the petition to the current number of signatures. I am clear what people hope I can say.

The Government are, of course, committed to transparency. We are agreed that as much information as possible should be in the public domain. The public would expect that, and the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, enacted by the Labour Government and now fully in force, are ones that we are expected to implement.

Most of the papers that relate to the Shrewsbury 24 are already available in the National Archives for public inspection. Of the records that date back to 1972, over 90% are available. Only 625 documents, I am told, are not yet publicly available—[Hon. Members: “Only.”]—across the Government, in relation to that year. The only material held by the Cabinet Office that is not available and that is the information at the heart of this debate is one report and three paragraphs—one in each of three separate documents—which I shall return to later.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No. If I have time a bit later, I will, but I am trying to make sure that all the information is on the record.

There has already been a decision, taken in principle by the Labour Government and implemented by this Government, to reduce the age at which historical records are made available. The period is coming down now from 30 to 20 years. [Interruption.] No “buts”. In parallel with that, we are reducing the maximum duration of the exemptions from disclosure from 30 to 20 years. That has started this year, and the period will also reduce, so that people in future will not have to wait as long to see records. So those are good changes, but let us be specific about the matters that relate to the request for these papers today.

The current law is, and the consistent practice has been, that under section 34 of the Public Records Act 1958, public bodies are allowed but not required to retain records after they would usually be required to be transferred to the National Archives—so, after the old 30-year period, which is reducing. Retention is allowed where it is necessary for administrative purposes or for “any other special reason”.

Since 1967, when Lord Gardiner was Lord Chancellor in the Labour Government, all Lord Chancellors—five Labour, five Conservative—have been satisfied that where the transfer of security and intelligence records would prejudice national security, they can be retained on the “other special reason” basis. That approval is recorded in an instrument, signed by the Lord Chancellor, which is more commonly referred to as the security instrument.

The current approval that governs security and intelligence records was, as colleagues have said—the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to it—given by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he was Lord Chancellor on 19 December 2011. That does indeed last until 2021. That is public; it has been on the website. However, these papers are due to be reviewed by the Cabinet Office for their security and sensitivity every 10 years, as all other papers are, and they will fall to be reviewed next year, in 2015. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Blaydon respectfully that I suggest that he and his colleagues, who have a rightful interest in their being revealed, address that office and that deadline, and I will personally take an interest in this issue in the time up to next year, when they fall to be reviewed for their security.

What are the specific documents? One is a Security Service report, and the other three are single paragraphs, each of which has been redacted from letters and memorandums. The first was in a letter from the director general of the Security Service to the Cabinet Secretary dated 10 January 1975, which is public apart from one redacted paragraph. It refers—it is not a secret—to the fact that the assessment was that there was Communist party activity in relation to the campaign. The second was in a minute dated 13 January 1975 from the Cabinet Office to No. 10, which has been released apart from a single paragraph. The third was in a minute from No. 10 to the Cabinet Office dated 15 January 1975.

[Chris Williamson]

Is the Communist party a banned organisation then?

[Simon Hughes]

Of course it is not. I am just saying what the revealed documents have said, and they are in the public domain. The Ministry of Justice has no relevant information retained. I do not know whether any other Departments have retained any. I am not privy to that information, but I am clear that four pieces of information are retained by the Cabinet Office and are open to review next year.

As hon. Members know, under the Freedom of Information Act people can request that information. They then, in particular, have to confront the question as to whether it is covered by the exemption in section 23 of the Act. The application was refused in this case. It went to the Information Commissioner and he decided on 2 July 2008 that the four documents do relate to the intelligence agencies and therefore fall within the scope of the exemption. The exemption is designed to protect

“Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters”.

The view of the Government has always been—all Governments have said—that to provide details of the national security risks that might be posed by the release of information of this sort would be detrimental to the purposes of the exemption set out in the Act. So that is the view of the Cabinet Office, but these things will be reviewed next year. The Lord Chancellor has asked me to say that he has personally looked at these documents and come to the same view. I know that that will be disappointing and frustrating to people, but the position is that those documents cannot therefore be revealed now.

However, one other matter is very important. There is currently a legal challenge to the convictions, and the case went to the Court of Appeal. Miscarriages of justice are not matters for the Government to consider; they are matters for the Criminal Cases Review Commission—ultimately, for the courts. The hon. Member for Blaydon set out the arguments for a miscarriage of justice review, and I understand them. The cases of at least some of the Shrewsbury 24 have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and it is currently assessing that set of applications. It has the power to require, when it is reasonable, that any information held by any public body in relation to any case under review can be retained for, and produced to, it, irrespective of confidentiality. The Commission therefore has, potentially, the access to information of the highest sensitivity, including material withheld by the Cabinet Office—the Commission has the power to see that. My understanding is that the Commission has asked for this information. It is currently considering the application for a review, with this information before it. If the Commission sends a case to the courts, the courts have the power to see the information, and I would entirely expect them to be able to do so.

There are two routes ahead, and they include the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). One is the review that is coming up next year by the Cabinet Office. The second is the miscarriage of justice review, which is currently actively being pursued. I hope that colleagues understand that I am, at the moment, unable to change the position that Governments have adopted over the years, but there are ways in which this matter can be reviewed again. I accept that. That is proper and appropriate, and therefore the efforts of the hon. Member for Blaydon, and those of the petitioners and colleagues, are not in vain.

14:59

[Mr Anderson]

I welcome the Minister to his post, and I will look very closely at what he had to say. The youngest picket is 65 and the oldest is 87. One of the people who is central to this debate died last week. The reality is that people may need to be brought to book, and if we go on hiding information, those people will be long gone before there is a chance to find out exactly what went on.

The Minister talked about national security. That has been quoted in this House for the past 40 years. It was quoted over Bloody Sunday; shoot-to-kill; the setting up of a secret terror force in Northern Ireland; the fitting up of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four; the picket at Orgreave; the allegations of rioting at Mansfield during the miners’ strike; and, despicably, the Hillsborough decision.

The people of this country do not have faith in those who control the state, because they have seen how the words “national security” have, for so long, meant national cover-up. They do not want to live in a country where secrets are used to abuse the people, and the people in the Public Gallery today were abused. Des Warren went to his death bed as a direct result of being locked up for something he did not do. My sister nursed him in 1988, 15 years after he had been in jail and subjected to what has been described to me as chemical castration. My sister worked as a nurse in the Army, and she said that the two weeks she looked after Des Warren was the hardest work she had ever done in her life. All that man did was to try to make life better for the many he represented. He tried to create a safer working environment and to ensure that employers did the right thing and paid income tax and national insurance contributions. For that, he and five other men went to jail and 18 others had their lives destroyed. This is a matter of justice. I heard what the Minister had to say, and it was not good enough.

Question put.

15:01

Division 191

Ayes: 120

---

Labour: 111
Liberal Democrat: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Conservative: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Green Party: 1
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 3

---

Conservative: 3

Resolved,

That this House is seriously concerned at the decision of the Government to refuse to release papers related to the building dispute in 1972 and subsequent prosecutions of the workers known as the Shrewsbury 24 and calls on it to reverse this position as a matter of urgency.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I ask Members to leave the Chamber quietly and quickly so that we can start the next important Back-Bench debate.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

15:13

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.

I am pleased and honoured to be asked to open the debate to commemorate Holocaust memorial day. This debate has been held in the House since 2008. As colleagues will know, it is timed to be close to Holocaust memorial day, 27 January—the day that is linked to the liberation of the most notorious of the Nazi death camps, Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I welcome the support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien), my hon. Friends the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and my hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), who represented me at the Backbench Business Committee in order to see this debate put on. I also thank colleagues in all parts of the House who signed the early-day motion associated with the debate and a commemoration of the memorial day.

I thank—on behalf of all of us, I am sure—the Holocaust Educational Trust for its briefings and support, and for its extraordinary work in ensuring that a memory of the holocaust is kept alive by providing resources for education, the opportunity to visit Auschwitz, and the chance to meet remaining survivors.

I am conscious that a number of schools will watch and read this debate and encourage their students to do so, and I think that one of my duties in leading it is to explain exactly what the holocaust was, what it all means to us personally and why it remains necessary to remember it. I am conscious of time and that a number of colleagues want to get in, so I will do my best to be as brief as is necessary.

What was the holocaust and why does it matter to me? I was born just 10 years after the end of the second world war and brought up in north Manchester, one of the main centres of the Jewish community outside London. Jewish boys and girls were a key part of our Bury grammar school community and I was aware of them from my earliest days at five years old. As friends, we played and grew up together, and I picked up quite naturally on their different holidays and why Saturdays, not Sundays, were religiously important to them. As I got older and learned more about the war that fate decreed I had avoided, I became aware that my carefree childhood and youth had been bought at a terrible price by an older generation who had fought for my freedom.

I also became aware of something else: although a number of the families of my friends had shared that war against tyranny, they had also experienced something so profoundly shocking and beyond comprehension that it could in those days hardly be spoken of. They had experienced it not because of anything they had done, but just because of who they were: Jewish. It was the holocaust.

A good definition of the holocaust is provided in the opening displays of the permanent exhibition at the Imperial War museum in London:

“Under the cover of the Second World War, for the sake of their ‘new order,’ the Nazis sought to destroy all the Jews of Europe. For the first time in history, industrial methods were used for the mass extermination of a whole people. Six million were murdered, including 1,500,000 children. This event is called the Holocaust.

The Nazis enslaved and murdered millions of others as well. Gypsies, people with physical and mental disabilities, Poles, Soviet prisoners of war, trade unionists, political opponents, prisoners of conscience, homosexuals, and others were killed in vast numbers.”

It started, of course, with politics—the free and democratic election of Hitler and his Nazi party in 1933—and it then continued with the law. In April 1933, the law for the restoration of the professional civil service excluded Jews from professions. In September 1935, the Nuremberg laws banned intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Aryans and stripped Jews of their citizenship and all legal rights. Gradually, the civil rights of Jews across Germany were taken away—from being banned from being members of sports clubs in April 1933 to not being allowed to buy milk or eggs in July 1942.

And then the war. Shortly after Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, Nazis began to force Jews under their control to move into ghettos. This short-term measure soon developed into a long-term policy. The first ghetto in Poland was set up in October 1939. The Nazis established more than 1,000 ghettos in Poland and the Soviet Union alone. Living conditions were abysmal. Often several families lived where before there had been one. Jews were not allowed to leave or have any contact with the outside world. Food rations were at starvation level and disease was rife through lack of clean water and sanitation. Hundreds of thousands of people died in the ghettos. In the wake of the Warsaw ghetto revolt in April 1943, the Nazis decided to liquidate the remaining large ghettos. Eventually, those who lived in the ghettos were deported in cattle trucks, without food, sanitation or water, to concentration camps.

Let me quote from a remarkable memoir entitled, “Out of the Depths”, for which I am indebted to Israeli Ambassador Daniel Taub, who gave it to me at Christmas. It is the memoir of a small boy who survived deportation from Piotrków in Poland to the concentration camp of Buchenwald and who grew up to become Israel’s Chief Rabbi: Israel Meir Lau. His father, also a rabbi, is attacked during the process of deportation, and Rabbi Lau writes not only of the incident, but of how it was so important to him—and the Jewish people—in surviving the years to come. He says:

“Today, looking back on the six years of that war, I realize that the worst thing I endured in the Holocaust was not the hunger, the cold, or the beatings; it was the humiliation. It is almost impossible to bear the helplessness of unjustified humiliation. Helplessness becomes linked with that dishonor…

When a young boy sees his father beaten by a Gestapo captain with a maikeh”—

a rubber club—

“kicked with nailed boots, threatened by dogs, falter from the force of the blow, and suffer public shaming, he carries that terrible scene with him for the rest of his life. Yet I also carry the image of Father, with astonishing spiritual strength, bracing himself from falling, refusing to beg for his life, and standing tall once again before the Gestapo captain. For me, that image of his inner spiritual strength completely nullifies the helplessness that accompanied the humiliation.”

The Nazis established hundreds of concentration camps across Europe and six extermination camps located in Poland. The largest of the camps was Auschwitz-Birkenau, established by the Nazis in 1940 at a Polish army barracks in the suburbs of a small Polish city. Auschwitz-Birkenau was actually three separate camps with three different purposes, but Birkenau—also known as Auschwitz II—was the main death camp, built in 1941 on the site of the village of Brzezinka, 3 km from Auschwitz. The overall number of victims at Auschwitz-Birkenau in the years 1940 to 1945 is estimated to be just over 1 million—between 1.1 million and 1.5 million—people, the majority of whom were Jews and died in the gas chambers.

Those are the facts about the holocaust. I did not know all that when I was young, and I did not at once understand it all. My holocaust education and experience has continued throughout my life and my political career. As a student, I paid my first visit to Israel, and the first of a number of visits to Yad Vashem, which many other hon. Members have visited. That great centre tells the story of the holocaust through painful documentary, but, most poignantly of all, though family pictures and artefacts of the lost—the lost people and their lost homes, villages and towns.

We will all have our own memories of Yad Vashem, and know the points in the building at which we are stopped in our tracks. For many, it is the pile of children’s shoes, but for me it has always been the children’s memorial, where, surrounded by everlasting light, the names of the children of the holocaust are read out, with their age and location. It represents the most painful loss of all—the loss of innocence and of promise.

Yad Vashem, and other excellent memorials, such as that designed by Daniel Libeskind in Berlin and the Washington holocaust centre, I have found profoundly moving. Auschwitz, where many colleagues in the Chamber have been, should be part of people’s life journey to understand their world. I particularly commend the Holocaust Educational Trust’s work in providing such a chance to so many young people. Strangely, it is one visit I have not yet made. I do not know why. Perhaps, with all I now know, I am afraid to confront the emotion of being there, but I know that the time is coming when it will be right for me to go.

One place I have been is Warsaw. I have long been inspired by the extraordinary story of the rising of the Warsaw ghetto—the just over one mile square area that housed some 400,000 men, women and children. After some 250,000 had been deported by 1943, to die at Treblinka, the ghetto rose. The fiercest fighting was between mid-April and 16 May 1943, after which both life and the ghetto were extinguished. Some of the world’s most harrowing images of war and suffering come from the ghetto.

There is little left of the ghetto—the Soviet empire had no wish to commemorate or preserve the area, and built upon it—but I spent a morning tracing a couple of buildings, a handful of cobbles, the tramlines and the renowned wall on Sienna street, just to connect in some physical way with what had happened. Remarkably, there is a synagogue, which was saved because it was used as a stables by the Wehrmacht. There is a memorial at the Umschlagplatz, the station used for people to begin their journey to Treblinka.

The stories of survivors such as Chief Rabbi Lau, so painstakingly preserved, remain vital to the memory of what happened. Reading them is graphic. Meeting survivors is both humbling and inspiring, and I have been fortunate to meet several over the years. I commend the UK’s ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, and his team for their inspiration in co-ordinating funding from the UK to create a remarkable series of centres called Café Britannia.

Nearly one in every three senior citizens in Israel survived the camps or lived under Nazi occupation. According to a survey that was released earlier this year by the Foundation for the Benefit of Holocaust Victims in Israel, 37 Israeli holocaust survivors pass away each day. Of those who remain, many live alone and in poverty, psychologically and physically scarred by the trauma of their experiences. Those survivors often carry a deep need to share their stories, both to ease their personal pain and to educate others. In some cases, they crave the company of their fellow survivors—the only ones who can genuinely relate to their feelings and memories. As time goes by, the window of opportunity for reaching out to those ageing, vulnerable citizens grows smaller.

The UK has been involved in co-ordinating finance from the Jewish community and others in this country to fund a series of centres where survivors can meet socially. More than 1,000 survivors are now enjoying company and activities through the Café Britannia network, which represents 20% of all the social clubs for survivors in Israel. In January 2011, while I was Minister for the middle east, I visited one such centre to find people from Manchester and hear about their extraordinary backgrounds. Thus, history and the contemporary meet.

That leads me to my last point, which is why we still need to remember. The holocaust is unique. There is no parallel—it was a cataclysmic event of such size and quantity that there can be none. Although its facts are unique, the evil heart that created the horror still beats. As Solzhenitsyn said in “The Gulag Archipelago”:

“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.”

It is because of that universal appeal that I am pleased that Holocaust memorial day embraces the genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur. I do not believe that the unique nature of the holocaust is devalued by recognising the horrors that have occurred since. The generosity of the Jewish community in being inclusive reminds all of us of our common humanity. However, we should still choose our words and descriptions with care so as never to minimise the scale of what the holocaust represents. If that heart of evil has produced what it has since, it can do so again. The greatest enemy of those who wish to cause us harm is memory—the human conviction never to forget, so as to warn others.

The evidence that we need to do so is all around us. Anti-Semitism remains on some university campuses in the United Kingdom and appears to fuel the rise of proto-fascist parties in continental Europe. Other Members might raise Jobbik in Hungary and the potential visit of an individual to the United Kingdom. Jobbik holds 12% of the parliamentary seats in Hungary. It has been reported that in 2012, the party’s foreign affairs spokesman called for a list to be compiled of all Hungarian citizens of Jewish origin as they were a “national threat”.

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

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a Hungarian neo-Nazi who intends to come to my constituency this Sunday to organise an anti-Semitic rally. That is the constituency that contains the Jewish museum, where the national launch of the Holocaust memorial day commemoration will take place on Monday. Does he share my view, which I have expressed to the Home Secretary, that she should use the powers that she has to keep this stinking, rotten, neo-Nazi alien out of this country?

[Alistair Burt]

I share the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and the views of the Jewish community, which have been expressed in exactly the same way. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes due note of what has been said by so many.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has mentioned all the people who were killed in Auschwitz. As somebody of Polish origin, I know that this issue is very important for all of us. Will he pay tribute to the many people in Poland and throughout Europe who hid Jewish families, at great risk to themselves and their families, because many people were spared the concentration camps by people who realised that what the Nazis were doing was so deplorable?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. Colleagues will appreciate that when opening a debate it is not possible to cover everything, but the role of the righteous gentile, appropriately recorded at Yad Vashem and other places, is an honourable one. Year after year we hear more stories of people who did extraordinary work, putting themselves at risk, and those in Poland who did that are to be as well thought of as any, bearing in mind the horror of Nazi occupation.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend—I see him as a Friend in this—on securing this debate. Does he agree with me about the Jobbik leader and the problems originating from that? I am going shortly to see the Hungarian ambassador about that matter. Does my right hon. Friend agree that inter-parliamentary co-operation in dealing with racism and anti-Semitism is essential in stopping the spread of that kind of vehemently racist party?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend’s record on this issue is one of great courage and hard work over many years, and he again makes a good point. Parliamentarians need to work with each other to prevent abuse of parliamentarians and loss of their rights in certain places—the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) does an invaluable job in the Inter-Parliamentary Union on that—and I and other colleagues would be interested to hear more about how co-operation between parliamentarians, particularly in Europe, can counter that scourge.

I am conscious of time, so let me move to a conclusion. Anti-Semitism also pains the people of France, who saw three Jewish children murdered in Toulouse in May 2012, and where we currently see public demonstrations of support outside synagogues for an entertainer of clear anti-Semitic views, who has allowed a holocaust denier to share his stage. This man is associated with a salute—the quenelle—made notorious in this country through its use by the footballer Nicolas Anelka. It is for Mr Anelka to answer the charges laid against him and I do not intend to make him the subject of our debate, but I would contrast his behaviour with that of the English football team who, with the support of the Holocaust Educational Trust, made a journey to Auschwitz during the European Championships of 2012. Captain Steven Gerrard spoke of the impact of that visit on the players, their awareness of their privileged life and their position as role models, and their understanding of that. I think those are the footballers whose views we should note today, and we should watch the film of their time there made by the Football Association and the Holocaust Educational Trust. That is what schools should look at as representing role models in this country.

Last January I attended the commemoration of Holocaust memorial day at the London Jewish Cultural Centre in north London, at the request of one of my longest standing and much loved friends from college, Mandy King. I took part in a moving morning of music and verse, with predominantly young people drawn from diverse communities. I was proud to follow at that ceremony a young girl from the Islamic Foundation. What a statement from both Jew and Muslim that they could stand together, because in my recent role I have been more acutely aware than ever of the pain in the Islamic world from so many sources, of the misery inflicted every day through sectarian violence, of that evil which flows through too many human hearts, and the pain of unresolved injustice, which perhaps this year might finally be addressed. All could be put aside in remembering the uniqueness of holocaust, while the generosity of the Jewish community in sharing the pain now has powerful resonance throughout the country.

With many thanks to those who work so hard around the country to remember this weekend and involve so many, let me conclude with Primo Levi’s haunting poem, “Shema”, which echoes the pain of his existence in Auschwitz:

“You who live secure

In your warm houses,

Who return at evening to find

Hot food and friendly faces:

Consider whether this is a man

Who labours in the mud

Who knows no peace

Who fights for a crust of bread

Who dies at a yes or a no.

Consider whether this is a woman,

Without hair or name

With no more strength to remember

Eyes empty and womb cold

As a frog in winter

Consider that this has been:

I commend these words to you

Engrave them on your hearts

When you are in your house, when you walk on your way.

When you go to bed, when you rise.

Repeat them to your children.

Or may your house crumble.

Disease render you powerless.

Your offspring avert their faces from you.”

15:34

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is respected across the House, and his compelling and emotional opening contribution.

The holocaust has always baffled me. If we are going to give away our age, I was born 20 years after those events. I have never understood how human beings in their millions could be so seduced by a message of hate that they could stand by and watch as other human beings were degraded, humiliated and murdered; how people could have stayed at the entrance to the gas chambers in Auschwitz, stripping people of their belongings and their last remnants of dignity, knowing that the fate that lay in store for them was a 20-minute, excruciatingly painful journey to death.

We are in the month of January and the phrase, “Man’s inhumanity to man” was first introduced in a poem by Robert Burns titled, “Man Was Made to Mourn”. As poignant as those words are, I still do not think they convey the horrors that took place over 70 years ago. Probably like everybody else in the House, I have read the books and watched the documentaries. I have watched “Schindler’s List”, “Band of Brothers”, in which the 101st Airborne Division liberated a sub-camp of Dachau concentration camp, and “The World at War”. All those depictions of what took place, however, fail to equal the insight offered to me by a survivor, Harry Bibring.

I had the privilege of meeting Harry in 2012. The Holocaust Educational Trust suggested that I might like to encourage my local authority to have a survivor meet and talk to older pupils from high schools in my area. Harry was born in 1925 and lived in Vienna with his mother and father and his sister, Gertie. His father owned a men’s clothing shop and, for that time and place, his family were relatively well-off. The young Harry remembered having family holidays. He enjoyed swimming and ice-skating, and his mother and father were well-off enough to be able to give him a season ticket membership to an ice-skating rink. He remembered hanging out of a window in Vienna watching the Germans march in, in 1938. He remembered liking the soldiers marching and the bright flags, but little did he know as a child that they were Nazi soldiers and that those bright flags were swastikas.

Harry’s membership of the ice-skating rink was revoked just days later, when a “No Jews Allowed” sign was erected. In November 1938, Harry’s father’s business was destroyed during Kristallnacht. He was arrested soon after. After he was released from prison, the family intended to flee to Shanghai, but his dad was robbed on his way to purchase the tickets. Thinking, as any mother and father would, of the safety of their children, Harry’s parents arranged for him and his sister to flee on a Kindertransport to the United Kingdom.

Harry’s father had arranged for guarantors to pick them up when they arrived in the UK. Harry said:

“I remember going to the Vienna West Bahnhof with my sister and our parents to get on the train at 10pm on the 13th March 1939 with about 600 other kids. The following day the train went slowly through Germany until it reached the Dutch border. Once it crossed over into Holland we were met on the platform by Jewish volunteers from Holland who gave us sweets and toys. We crossed to England on the night ferry from Hook of Holland to Harwich and arrived at Liverpool Street station in the afternoon of the 15th March 1939.”

Harry was not to know, when he left Vienna, that that was the last time he would ever see his mother and father. They were killed by the Nazis. Harry and his sister Gertie survived. Harry is still with us, and the world is an immeasurably better place with him in it.

Looking back from 2014, I would like to think that I would not have followed the crowd had I been in Germany at that time. I would like to think that I would have behaved like Irena Sendler, a Polish lady—the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned such people from Poland—who did so much to protect Jewish people. She was honoured in 1965 by the state of Israel as “Righteous among the nations”. During world war two, Irena served as a plumber working in the Warsaw ghetto. She smuggled Jewish babies out of the ghetto in the bottom of her toolbox. At the back of a truck, she kept a dog she had trained to bark to cover the noise of the infants when Nazi soldiers approached. The Nazis eventually caught her, sentenced her to death and broke both her arms and legs, but she managed to evade execution and survived the war. She kept details of all the children she saved in a glass jar she buried in her back garden, and she tried to locate their parents after the war, but sadly most had perished in the gas chambers. I wonder if I would have been brave enough to do something like that.

Holocaust memorial day allows us to remember those who perished, those who survived and those who were brave beyond our comprehension, and it challenges us to learn from history to prevent such events from happening again. That is our aspiration, but sadly Bosnia, Darfur and Rwanda remind us that history can repeat itself.

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

We need to observe Holocaust memorial day, given that across Europe we have national list systems for elections, meaning that a small percentage of a population can elect neo-Nazis. We have to remember that this is happening, and we need to reinforce to people that 6 million of the Jewish community were murdered. We must not forget that Hitler came up partly through democratic institutions, and we must ensure that such a thing never happens again.

[Mr McCann]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that others want to speak, so I shall move on without taking any further interventions. However, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said that politics was at the heart of the matter, and we must remember that it was the treaty of Versailles that gave Hitler a platform on which to build the hatred that led to the terrible atrocities of the second world war. It was a twisted variety of politics, but politics none the less.

I want to finish on a positive note. I have been very lucky in my life. I have visited both the Holocaust museum in Washington DC and Yad Vashem. These museums are grim, and going through their exhibits can be an emotionally draining experience. At the end of the museum in Washington, the visitor passes down long corridors, either side of which are huge glass containers filled with the spectacles, shoes, luggage and possessions of the Holocaust victims—a haunting end to an experience that you can never forget—but at the very end is a video loop in which a woman explains her personal story of liberation. When she was emaciated, dehydrated and thought she was near the end of her life, she was picked up by a soldier. She told the soldier that he could not touch her because she was Jewish, and he replied, fighting back the tears, “I’m Jewish too.” The gentleman was a GI. After the war, they married and they settled in the United States of America—a triumph of the human spirit over evil and another reason we should all observe Holocaust memorial day.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As the House will be aware, several Members wish to speak and there is limited time, so I am imposing a seven-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

15:43

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

It is a privilege to follow the outstanding opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and the genuinely moving speech by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann).

It will come as no surprise, with the name O’Brien, that I am not Jewish, but it is critical to remember that we are all survivors and collectively have a duty to work together to avert an atrocity such as the holocaust ever happening again. As has been said, ultimately the causes were as political as anything else, and so, being engaged in politics, we have that duty.

As someone born in Africa, I do not deny the unsettling parallels with what has happened in places such as Rwanda—it is 20 years since those events—and although we were rightly warned to be extremely careful not to confuse the word “genocide” with “holocaust”, given the gravity of the holocaust, which we have to respect, none the less there were many lessons that humanity could and should have learned that could have helped us to avert the genocides on the continent of my birth. In that sense, we are all participants and all survivors.

Above all, I want to pay tribute in my brief contribution to the Holocaust Educational Trust. I have been a beneficiary over the last 12 months, and I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau with the trust in what is a Government-funded programme. We are accountable in respect of how worth while the experience is—and of that, I am in no doubt. Although I have been to Israel, including to Yad Vashem, with the Conservative Friends of Israel, nothing quite prepares one for the first visit to witness what took place at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

It was a privilege to make this visit accompanied by a group of sixth formers from my constituency, which made the experience all the more powerful. As someone in their 50s, I was travelling for the first time to this place with young people; the cross-generational learning and deep emotional experience that was shared between us helped us to understand what it means to witness what amounts to an appalling assault on the eyes, the mind and the heart. We all took away different things from the day. Some things shocked us, and then there were odd things, such as the very normality of life around Auschwitz that carries on today, and the extraordinary bewilderment at how a herd of human beings could have persuaded themselves not to stop this happening at the time. It was difficult to manage the sense of disbelief, horror and outrage as we went through this vicarious experience. When we returned on the plane, there was a not a shocked silence—more a sense of relief from a discussion of shared experiences. We gained a nearer—never a perfect, but a nearer—understanding of what had taken place there.

For those who have the privilege of living in the UK, one particularly telling item was a map on the walls of Auschwitz, showing the railway lines along which all the people had been transported from around Europe. Huge distances—from Norway or Hungary, for example—were involved, but there was no line through the UK. We were not invaded by the Nazis, and were not subject to these appalling transportations, so all the more for us to learn from the experience. We all carried with us the shocking images and the sense of outrage, and we recalled the point on the tracks where the trucks were parted, the dolls’ clothing, the names on the suitcases, the sheer industrial scale of Birkenau, and the candle lighting ceremony at the end. These experiences created a deep impression and will be for ever remembered. I would like to pay particular personal tribute to the wise leadership and spiritual input of Rabbi Marcus, who is deeply involved in the visits.

One of the benefits of these trips is the ability to broadcast a longer message through local newspapers, for example, and students can be encouraged to be part of communicating the message and sharing it with their peers. It was a harrowing and tough day for all of us and the horror of what we saw and the reactions and emotions we experienced will stay with us for the rest of our lives. One cannot overstate the importance of visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau or of recognising the full extent of the ghastly industrialised nature of the holocaust. These events might have taken place 70 years ago, but as our society bears witness, we need to continue to teach the lessons of the holocaust to the younger generation in order to fight bigotry and hatred today. After witnessing what happened, it is impossible to understand how there could be holocaust denial.

We do see some anti-Semitic behaviour in our midst today—on the football terraces, for example. There have been some recent arrests. I take note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said about focusing on positive things, but let us be absolutely clear that there should be no no-go areas for this type of behaviour. We must not allow the excuse of “What happens on the terraces stays on the terraces.” In this instance, with anti-Semitic behaviour, holocaust denial or teasing chants, the police must enforce the laws of the land. If we allow a chink in this armour, we start to excuse something that is historically inexcusable. We have the witnesses of young minds on the football terraces; they must not be given the chance to think anything other than that the holocaust was one of the most horrific experiences in history. A visit to Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust is the ultimate antidote to any such tendencies. I commend the trust’s work and the public support that it receives, and I would encourage not just the continuation but the broadening of its programme.

15:50

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

I am privileged to be able to follow such genuine and effective contributions. I congratulate in particular the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on the very moving and sincere way in which he opened this extremely important debate.

The first Holocaust memorial day was held here in the United Kingdom in 2001, as a result of a cross-party decision by Parliament following a private Member’s Bill presented by Andrew Dismore. At that time, there were doubters who were not sure that it was appropriate to have a Holocaust memorial day focusing on the holocaust itself. Now that date is firmly in the national calendar, and I think that very few people would question the correctness of our decision.

It is absolutely essential for new generations to receive education about the brutality, the depravity and the racial hatred involved in the organisation of the calculated mass murder of 6 million people. That lesson needs to be learnt so that people not only know about the unique horror of the holocaust, but understand where hatred and bigotry can lead, because that affects all of our society and all the people in it. The Holocaust Educational Trust’s lessons from Auschwitz programme enables generations of young people and their teachers to visit Auschwitz, as part of a wider educational programme to provide a greater understanding of the holocaust and its impact for everyone.

This week I attended the trust’s annual Merlyn Rees memorial lecture, which was given by Thomas Harding. He spoke of the search for Rudolf Höss, the kommandant of Auschwitz. That served as a reminder of the need to bring war criminals to account, and also as a reminder of the nature of evil. Rudolf Höss led an apparently normal family life, with a loving wife and loving children, in the midst of the horrors and the butchery of Auschwitz. Perhaps we should reflect on the nature of evil, and on what people can do.

Also this week, the Football Association decided to charge Anelka following his celebration of having scored a goal by making an “inverted Nazi symbol” salute, the quenelle. What I found even more disturbing than what Anelka did was his defence, which was that he had acted in support of his friend Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, who is a French performer, a holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, and someone whose offences include inviting the holocaust denier Robert Faurisson on stage as part of his performances. The people who support this performer claim that they do so because they are anti-establishment, and that they are not anti-Semitic, but it does not take very much imagination to appreciate what that defence actually means. It gives us food for thought, because it is deeply and gravely disturbing.

Sadly, anti-Semitism has not gone away, even following the horrors of the holocaust. A very recent European survey made disturbing findings in that regard. There is also anti-Semitic discourse: not explicit anti-Semitism, but reference in writing, speech and films to images and words which invoke feelings of anti-Semitism. The Community Security Trust has listed incidents of anti-Semitic discourse in its recent report and they are extremely disturbing. They are disturbing because they are wide-ranging and cut right across the political spectrum. They range from the bizarre, such as the reference in Press TV, speaking for Iran, which claimed that the Olympics were a Zionist plot and blamed Jews in Hollywood and the so-called Jewish-controlled media as ultimately responsible for the United States school shootings and massacres of children, to those I find more disturbing, such as the Occupy Wall Street cartoon from Tampa in the USA which was displayed on Facebook and which showed a big-nosed bearded Jew using the UN logo as a steering wheel in a car with President Obama as the gearstick.

I am also concerned by statements such as that made by former diplomat Peter Jenkins in a debate at Warwick university, where he stated that Christian morality was somehow superior to Jewish morality. He said:

“The idea that a just war requires the use of force to be proportionate seems to be a Christian notion and not a Jewish notion.”

I find that kind of insinuation that morally Judaism is inferior to, in his case, Christianity not just plain wrong but deeply disturbing. That kind of insinuation, which I hear too often, should be recognised. Reference has already been made during this debate to the planned visit to London this weekend of Gábor Vona, leader of the anti-Semitic Hungarian Jobbik party, and his plan to be here on Holocaust memorial day.

Now that we have Holocaust memorial day firmly in the national calendar, I think we understand the need to educate people about the enormity of the evils of the holocaust. That is so that people understand what happened in those terrible years and that terrible time. It is also a lesson for today and about where evil, bigotry and prejudice can lead. It is something that all in our society need to learn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Lee Scott.

15:57

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

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) not only on securing this debate, but on the moving and compassionate way in which he spoke. You are truly a good man, sir.

Quite rightly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you called me by the name I have had since my birth: Lee Scott. However, if it had not been indirectly for the holocaust you would have called me by the name of Lee Shulberg, because that is our family name. My late father changed our name, because being caught while fighting in the second world war with a Jewish surname was the difference between going to a prisoner of war camp and a concentration camp. We kept the name after the second world war, but on a personal level I felt that I would like to get the name Shulberg into Hansard in the House of Commons.

Anti-Semitism has not gone away. At the last general election, as many friends on both sides of the House will know, I was approached by some people while out campaigning and called a “dirty Jew” and was told they wished to kill me. On a fairly regular basis I still get anti-Semitic e-mails. Has anyone learned anything from history? I sometimes fear not when we look at genocides across the world that are still happening. Even today, as we sit in this House, there are people in camps in various countries who are being killed.

I want to pay tribute particularly to Karen Pollock and the Holocaust Educational Trust. I have been to Auschwitz with them and I have also visited Theresienstadt and Babi Yar, a ravine where Jews were rounded up, shoved in and shot. I have seen first hand the piles of the children’s shoes, and I am not ashamed to say that I cried at Auschwitz. I do not often cry, but at Auschwitz I cried when I saw what man’s inhumanity toward man can lead to.

I have worked closely with my hon. and good Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on various projects that have involved holocaust survivors. I went into schools to talk about what happened and I try to make some semblance of sense of what happened and to explain it to people. But it is impossible to make any sense of it. I pay tribute to everyone from all political parties who were involved in getting Holocaust memorial day into our calendar. On Holocaust memorial day on Monday, I will be in the London borough of Redbridge, my local council. I pay tribute to Councillors Alan Weinberg and Leon Schaller, who paid for and dedicated a memorial to the holocaust, which is in our main park, where we will hold a ceremony of remembrance. I have looked around the Chamber today and seen people with tears in their eyes, and at that ceremony there will be tears in all of our eyes because people, not only Jews but Gypsies, homosexuals, and anybody that the vile Nazi regime wanted to get rid of, were exterminated.

Last night I happened to be flicking through the TV programmes quite late and saw a drama about the Nuremberg trials. I saw the evidence of what was done. I again could not comprehend, even though I know it, even though I have seen it, what we saw and what we heard. The work that the Holocaust Educational Trust does, the work that many people do to teach the next generation—because let us face it, there will not be many survivors left as years go by—recognises that if we dare forget what has happened in the past even for one second, it is not impossible that history will repeat itself.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Of course history repeats itself. I have seen genocide. I have buried 104 women and children in a mass grave. I have picked up the head of a child thinking it was a ball and dropped it with horror. I was so upset with myself when I discovered it was a child. I have seen this. Of course history repeats itself. The purpose of Holocaust memorial day is to remind us that it continues in another form, and that is the purpose of this debate and of our remembering—to try to stop it happening again. My goodness, we are human beings and it will happen, but we must make every endeavour to stop it.

[Mr Scott]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. Yes, as I have said, things are going on as we sit here today, but I still say we can remember and we can do our utmost to make sure such things do not happen anywhere again.

I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not detain the House too much longer. My final statement is that I am proud to be a Member of this House. I am immensely proud and grateful to Great Britain for taking in my grandparents, because without any question I would not be alive today if it had not. And I am proud to be Jewish.

16:03

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing this debate. It is a privilege to follow the speech that we have just heard.

In 1939, a 10-year-old Jewish boy from an industrial town in what was then Czechoslovakia was put on a train by his mum and two teenage sisters and eventually made his way to Britain as a refugee. It was to be the last time that he would see them. They were rounded up, sent first to a ghetto, then to Theresienstadt, and eventually to Treblinka, where they were murdered on 5 October 1942. That boy is my dad and that explains why for me this issue is so important.

Like other Members who have spoken today, I have visited Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust, which does such important work. I want to say a few words about the survivors with whom they work, including people such as Ziggy Shipper, who at the age of 84 visits schools every week to teach children where hatred and prejudice can lead, and Eva Clarke, who was born in Mauthausen concentration camp, but survived and came to the UK after the war. I met an amazing woman through the Association of Jewish Refugees, Mindu Hornick, who lives in Birmingham now. She was imprisoned in a concentration camp and then sent to work as slave labour in an armaments factory. I said to her, “Mindu, these shells that you made, how many of them worked?” She looked at me, smiled and said, “None.” Is that not incredible? Here was a woman, in fear of her life in a concentration camp, thinking about how she could prevent other people from being killed.

Ben Helfgott weighed less than 6 stone when he was rescued from Theresienstadt, but he went on to represent Britain as an Olympic weightlifter. The only other member of his family to survive was Mala Tribich, who was forced to work as a slave labourer. She was sent to Ravensbrück and ended up in Bergen-Belsen. Tomorrow, she will be speaking to hundreds of people at Dudley’s annual holocaust commemoration, which I organise. Those are all incredible people. They spend their time teaching students and young people about the evils of racism, and it is humbling to see the sense of duty and commitment that drives them and other survivors to use their experience of that terrible period to create a better world for the rest of us.

I have seen young people visiting Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust, and I have seen their lives being changed by witnessing the appalling evidence of the industrial-scale slaughter that took place at Birkenau. I have seen them return to Dudley to campaign against racism and build a stronger and more united community. No one can fail to be affected by what they see in those places: the mountains of human hair and glasses; the pots and pans and personal possessions that show that people thought they were going to live elsewhere, not to be murdered.

Last summer, my dad and I travelled to the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. In Ostrava, we found the flat where he grew up. He stood on the pavement, pointed at the first floor window and told me that that had been his bedroom. He described how he had been woken up in the middle of the night on 18 March 1939. He had looked out to see what the noise in the street was. It was German soldiers marching into the town square. We found the site of the Jewish school and the synagogue he had attended. Ostrava had had several synagogues, Jewish schools, sports clubs, shops and businesses to serve the 10,000 Jews who lived there. Incredibly, the single room that serves as the city’s synagogue today has seats for just 30 people. For me, that evidence of entire families and whole communities having been wiped out is even more moving than the evidence of industrial-scale slaughter on display at the concentration camps.

In Poland, we travelled to a small town called Nowy Targ, where we found the family shop of my dad’s uncle, Emmanuel Singer. A few streets away, we walked through the Jewish cemetery, which contains the mass grave of 500 Jews who were butchered in a single day. We saw the wall behind what is now a youth club where one of my dad’s cousins had been shot after being dragged from his fiancée’s family’s attic. We heard how Emmanuel Singer had fled to Krakow with forged Aryan papers and hidden there before being betrayed, arrested and tortured for his money. He was then dragged to his death along a country road, chained behind a horse and cart. Three thousand Jews lived in Nowy Targ before the war. I asked the local historian who was showing us around, “How many survived and came back? How many live here now?” She looked at me as though I was mad, and replied, “None, of course.”

Seeing that for myself and hearing the detailed, human stories really brought home to me the horrific scale of the tragedy. It is impossible to compare anything to this, history’s greatest crime, but it is certainly possible to learn lessons. There is a quote from the Spanish philosopher, George Santayana, at the memorial at Auschwitz. It says:

“The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again.”

The fact that there are no tracks leading from Britain to Auschwitz tells us something very special about our country. When other countries were rounding up their Jews and herding them on to the trains to the concentration camps, Britain provided a safe haven for tens of thousands of refugee children such as my dad. It is a fantastic thing about our country that the son of a Jewish refugee can become a Member of Parliament and serve as a Government Minister.

Let us think of Britain in the 1930s. The rest of Europe was succumbing to fascism, but here in Britain, Mosley was rejected. In 1941, France was invaded, Europe was overrun and America was not yet in the war. Just one country was fighting not just for Britain’s freedom but for the world’s liberty. Britain did not just win the war; we won the right for people around the world to live in freedom. For me, that period defines our country. It is what makes Britain the greatest country in the world, with a special claim to the values of democracy, freedom, fairness and tolerance. Because of who we are as a people and what we are as a country, the British people came together and stood up to the Nazis and fought fascism. We are a country that does not walk away or turn a blind eye. On each occasion when people have been gassed and chemical weapons have been used against people, we have known whose side we were on and we have always in the past stood up for the oppressed.

16:10

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Like my colleagues, I thank the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for securing the debate, and it was a privilege for me and my hon. Friends to assist him in that. I thank the Backbench Business Committee. Such debates have taken place since 2008. I have been involved in them all since being elected in 2010.

I also thank colleagues for their powerful, resonant and quite modern speeches. I say “modern” because they are here today to represent their constituencies in the year 2014, yet two of my colleagues’ parents were Jewish and survived the holocaust. If they had not survived, my colleagues would not be here. That really does bring things home to me and is the reason I was always determined if I got elected to give my full support to the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust memorial day on 27 January.

All colleagues have alluded to the obvious reasons for the memorial day. It is about the memory of those millions of people who died simply because of their race, colour or creed. Another reason relates to the modern day. As other Members have mentioned, we cannot forget what happened or let it go because, if we did, we would demean the memory of many people who were slaughtered in this desperate way and make it easier for society, for nations and for people to continue to behave disgracefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made a strong point about when he was serving in Bosnia and the reality of genocide there. That demonstrates poignantly, powerfully and horribly what life and death really mean in such situations, and it reminds us all of what is happening in the Congo and Syria and of the rise of profound political and religious extremism, which has got worse over the past few years. We all have views about why that has happened, but it is undeniably continuing to get worse. A number of colleagues have mentioned the Jobbik party in Hungary, with 15% of the vote, and another is the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn in Greece, with 12 MPs.

These things do not go away, because humanity is basically interchangeable. Feelings, ignorance, fear and anger are the same today as they were 5,000 years ago. The only difference is that we now dress differently, we have computers and a few other things, and we drive very fast in cars, which we could not do 500 years ago, but humanity does not change. However, a positive aspect of humanity is a continuous determination to get better, to improve and to be kind and generous. Alongside all the horror that the Holocaust Educational Trust helps us to understand as parliamentarians, and Holocaust memorial day helps us to remember and commemorate those who died, there is the other side of human nature. That is also part of this remembrance.

I shall give colleagues an example. There is a country at the moment that does not get a busting lot of good media coverage in the Daily Mail and the rest called Bulgaria. Perhaps all hon. Members know—I did not know until a few months ago—that, although Bulgaria is smack in the middle of the Balkans and central Europe and has had a history of virulent anti-Semitism for hundreds of years, the Bulgarian people would not accept what the Nazis wanted, so 50,000 Jews survived in Bulgaria. Is that not fascinating? That is the flip side of this horror of the holocaust; so many good things were done. As another colleague said, we should not forget the individual families in Poland and other parts of Europe who saved Jewish families, at enormous cost to themselves. I was determined to mention the 50,000 Jews saved in Bulgaria in the Chamber today, because whenever I read certain papers at the minute I find that poor old Bulgaria does not get a lot of good coverage. So I pay tribute to that nation, in my small way as a Member of Parliament within Westminster, for what its people did. A lot of the Bulgarian Government wanted to go along with the Nazis and pack all 50,000 Jews off, but the Orthodox Church in Bulgaria and the people there just would not have it.

[Bob Stewart]

What the hon. Gentleman has said rings a bell, and I want to place on the record the fact that in the middle of the war in Bosnia, in 1992-93, the one section of society in Sarajevo that was not threatened was the Jewish section. The Muslims, Croats and Serbs were all up against it. The one people protected, or seemingly protected, was the Jewish community, and guess what that community did? It tried to help other people. I pay tribute to that.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, as he makes such a powerful point.

So where are we at? Human nature is never going to act in a way that means these things will never happen again—we all know that. The reason for this commemorative day and the reason it is so important that the mother of Parliaments keeps having this debate year after year, even though it is 40, 50, 60, 70 years since these tragedies took place, is that it is a small way of holding the mirror up to man’s bestiality. That small attempt, that bit about knowledge and that emphasis on trying to ensure that the memory never disappears goes some way in helping us to challenge bigotry, of whatever type. Wickedness is not specific to any particular character or race; it covers humanity generally. So I am proud and privileged every year when I take part in these debates, even though I am not Jewish and have no personal family connection with the holocaust; I was always determined that if I had the privilege to be elected I would be here to do what I can in a small way to support this.

I pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, which does a fantastic job. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), as I know through my involvement with the trust that he was immensely important in getting the resources to ensure that the trust went on. All in all, this is a powerful annual debate, and it is a privilege to be here and to listen to the real, powerful experiences set out by some of my colleagues.

16:18

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

May I start with an apology, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have to be in Scotland this evening so I may not be able to be here for the wind-ups? I apologise to the Front Benchers and to other colleagues for that.

I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) for his generous recognition of the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). Sometimes, in the rough and tumble of politics, things can be forgotten, and those of us who were in the House at that time remember the tenacity with which he pushed for the memorial day. He was also a driver of the Stockholm declaration of 2001, and I thank him for that. I also want to thank the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who laid out the justification and rationale for today’s debate, and told us of his own journey—such journeys are the theme of this year’s memorial day.

Like other Members, I have visited Auschwitz-Birkenau and, although I grew up knowing about the holocaust—I was born in the last year of the 1940s and so am slightly nearer the end of the second world war than some of my other colleagues—nothing that I knew or had learned about it prepared me for the experience. The word “industrialisation” has been bandied about, but the whole programme is almost beyond comprehension. There was a trial and error approach. Initially, it was, “Let’s try and shoot the Jews.” Well, that was not fast enough. Then it was, “Let’s look at portable gas chambers”, but that was not efficient enough. Then they looked at how to dispose of the bodies. All that energy and entrepreneurship—if I can put it in such a way—went into an extermination programme, the sole purpose of which was to eradicate the Jewish community from Europe.

Like others who have spoken, I cannot comprehend the evil philosophy that underpinned the holocaust, and I will not understand it for as long as I live. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) said, it is difficult for us to appreciate what happened in those reasonably civilized cultural communities that produced philosophers and musicians. When it came to it, 6 million Jewish people were murdered, 1.5 million of whom were children. Like the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, I will never forget the first time I went through the children’s memorial at Yad Vashem.

We must also recognise the other groups of people who were murdered by the Nazis. Gypsies, disabled people, trade unionists, homosexuals, Poles, Russians and prisoners of war were all murdered as part of their ethnic cleansing programme.

When we visited Auschwitz and looked at those piles of glasses and children’s shoes—I will never forget the children’s shoes—there was a realisation among most of us that that could just as easily have been us. That is what made it all the more evocative. There was one young woman on the tour who said, “I don’t believe it.” She was not a holocaust denier in a political sense. She just could not comprehend that human beings could do that to each other. The Holocaust Educational Trust should be congratulated on, among all the other things that have been mentioned, encouraging, allowing and supporting young people to face up to the fact that human beings can do awful things to each other. I am sure that the young woman, once her colleagues had spoken to her, came to her understanding of the events. None the less it shocked us that there we were seeing what had happened, and it was just too awesome—in the correct sense of the word—for her to understand.

We must continue to support the Holocaust Educational Trust and other organisations and all the visits to Auschwitz-Birkenau and other centres. I have visited Theresienstadt, or Terezin as it is often called, which is a town that was evacuated and filled up with people who were on their way to Auschwitz.

As the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien) said, genocidal murder has not stopped. We can see that in our most recent history. In 1994, 1 million Rwandan people were killed in a matter of 100 days. How is that comprehensible? We must all understand that we, as part of the international community, stood back and watched it happen.

I am pleased that Scotland’s Holocaust memorial day is being held in Stirling. The speakers will include Arn Chorn-Pond, who escaped from Cambodia after being held by the Khmer Rouge, and Alfred Munzer, who, as a Jewish child during the holocaust, was separated from his family and kept in hiding by Indonesian neighbours in Holland.

I will not be with my colleagues, Provost Mike Robbins and others in Stirling because I will be in Auschwitz on Monday with other politicians from across Europe, from Poland, and from Israel, and with some survivors for a special remembrance on the 60th anniversary. We will be in Poland at a site that is symbolic but, sadly, not unique in the history of the holocaust. When we stand on those railway tracks and remember those who were murdered, we will also know that thanks to the endeavours of many there will be communities, children and young people across the world commemorating that day.

The one point of optimism in all this is that the Nazis never achieved their ambition. They did not exterminate every Jew from Europe. If an optimistic message comes out of Holocaust memorial day it is that: the survivors won.

16:25

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

I should disclose that I am trustee and director of the Holocaust Educational Trust. I thank all the contributors to today’s debate for the compliments and thanks they have given to the trust. On behalf of the trust, I thank this Government and their predecessors for the support that they have given to the trust, particularly for the programme that takes children to Auschwitz. That has affected many Members’ constituents and it is good that this is a matter with cross-party support.

It would not be right for me to pick out everybody who has spoken today, on both sides of the House. Every contribution has been outstanding. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) made a point that was particularly interesting and relevant to me when he spoke about how this country stood up against Nazism. My late father, who was brought up in London in the 1930s, remembered very well that on Sunday mornings the blackshirts marched in their hundreds up and down the streets of this country shouting, “The Yids, the Yids, we’ve got to get rid of the Yids.” That is hard for us to believe in our society, despite the mention today of the Community Security Trust and some unforgiveable anti-Semitic incidents. When I compare that with people watching hundreds of people marching in jackboots in our own country shouting such things about Jewish people, I believe that we have progressed tremendously.

My father, on being conscripted into the Army in this country as a normal 18-year-old boy, was beaten up by the non-Jewish members of his platoon, who said, “You Jews are to blame for this war.” That was a feeling then and the little remnants of that feeling come out in what those people from Hungary say and what people—very few people, but some—say elsewhere, albeit quietly now because of the protection of the law. That feeling is still there.

I feel that today, as the Member of Parliament for Watford, I should particularly talk about holocaust education in one school that is, I believe, a model for schools around the country. It is Watford grammar school for girls, under the inspired leadership of Dame Helen Hyde, the daughter of holocaust survivors. It is a very successful school. It is called a grammar school, but it is actually a state comprehensive school with some selection. In many ways, it is ordinary—it could be any school.

The girls begin their holocaust education in year 9, when they are taught about stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination and where they can lead. They are asked to look at their own prejudices again because, as hon. Members have said, it is in the nature of human beings to have some prejudices. They talk about Anne Frank and her experiences in detail, even at a very young age.

In years 10 and 11, the girls do a detailed study of what took place under the Nazis, the outcome for Jewish people and others. They consider the moral and ethical issues that affect people in general. Further on in the school, they can do GCSEs and A-levels in relevant subjects.

Dame Helen runs the largest student holocaust conference every November, attended by 400 students and members of the public. I have had the privilege of opening the conference and up to 16 survivors have spoken. This school in this small part of Hertfordshire is a model. The girls do very well academically, so it does not in any way prejudice their education. Holocaust education is used as a way of teaching them about so much in life that is relevant to people.

Through my involvement with holocaust education and with the HET, I have spoken to girls and boys in a school two or three miles away from here, in east London, where one of the survivors sent by the HET to speak to them gave, as one can imagine, a very moving story of their experiences in the holocaust. A young lady—a Muslim—told me that the speaker, a 90-year-old lady, was the only Jewish person she had ever met in her life. In certain hon. Members’ constituencies two miles to the north and east of here, that probably would not be the experience. It shows the prejudice that can build up about Jewish people because people do not meet anyone of Jewish faith.

If the theme of my short speech is one thing, it is that holocaust education is not just about the most important thing—teaching about the holocaust—but about the lessons that the holocaust can have for everybody’s life in getting rid of the prejudice that is seen in all our lives. To some people—we heard football used as an example—these things might be harmless fun, but they fuel prejudice and ignorance.

I am pleased to be part of this debate that takes place in this House every year. I hope it will focus some people’s minds on the holocaust and remembering the 6 million-plus people who died tragically. If their deaths meant anything—if there is one thing they could have hoped for—it is that they helped to eradicate this form of prejudice for generations to come.

16:31

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington). We can all join in thanking him for his work as a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust. I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on introducing the debate. It is entirely appropriate that we consider this matter on a regular basis. When he summed up last year’s debate, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), he said that these debates show the House at its best. Today’s has been no exception, and we should all be proud of that. Last year, I explained that my interest in understanding more about the holocaust had arisen from visits I had made to Rwanda.

In 2012, I went to Auschwitz with students from Rugby high school. Last year, the editor of the local newspaper visited with another school party. In his account, he wrote of the massive impact on the young people who go there. They start off chatty, as teenagers often are, but as they see the horrors of Auschwitz the magnitude of what happened there dawns on them, and they become much more thoughtful and reflective. In addition to having seen what happened in Rwanda and Auschwitz, next month I will be joining a delegation visiting Cambodia, which it is impossible to visit without having regard to the killings that occurred there in the 1970s.

We have heard many emotional and moving speeches. Earlier today, I re-read last year’s debate in Hansard to remind myself of the comments Members made. I vividly remember the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who spoke about his meetings with holocaust survivors—some of whom were members of his family—what they had seen and gone through, and the fact that it had never left them, not least because of the numbers tattooed on their arms. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) gave an account of what he had seen in Bosnia in 1992. He concluded by saying that we must prevent an event such as the holocaust from ever happening again, which is, of course, one of the reasons for holding this debate and for the programme of events run by the HET. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) reminded us, when we read about the horrors of Bosnia, Cambodia, Darfur and Rwanda, we sometimes wonder whether we have learned the lessons of the holocaust. When I visited memorials in Rwanda and spoke to people who wanted to talk about the genocide, one question I was regularly asked was, “Why did the international community stand by and let it happen?” We might ask ourselves whether we are doing enough to bring conflict and bloodshed to an end across the world today.

On Monday, as part of raising awareness for Holocaust memorial day, I will join students from across Rugby at a study day at the art gallery and museum, which has an exhibition exploring the life of Anne Frank. She hid for several years in her father’s business premises in Amsterdam before being found and taken to her death at Belsen. The exhibition consists of paintings by artist Anne Berger, who has visited the Anne Frank house and created a number of images of her life. Using those images, students from schools across the town will take part in workshop groups and explore themes of discrimination, refugees and the journeys they made. I am very much looking forward to joining those students to talk about the issues and understand their perspective of what happened during the holocaust and elsewhere in the world.

I am also looking forward to sharing my thoughts on what I have learned not only from my visits, but from the two debates in which I have taken part in the House. I have learned as much from the speeches of other Members as I have from seeing things. I look forward to celebrating the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in ensuring that the world never forgets.

16:36

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an absolute privilege to participate in this debate. I wholeheartedly congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) not only on securing the debate, but on his deeply moving contribution.

Members on both sides of the Chamber have made some incredibly powerful contributions reflecting on the events of decades ago and pondering their relevance today—and I certainly believe that they are relevant today. We said then that never again would the world stand by while a state killed its own citizens in such a planned and systematic way. Today, and even then, it was unimaginable—completely and utterly incomprehensible —that a state could inflict such suffering and despair by exterminating its own people and those of other countries simply on the basis of a perceived difference.

Yet, as we reflect on the holocaust, how can we not also consider, as has been said, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur, where we have seen communities systematically dehumanised and killed because of a perceived difference, whether it be one of race, religion, ethnicity or belief?

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lyn Brown]

Can I not?

[Bob Stewart]

Of course.

[Lyn Brown]

With the help of the Commons Library, I have looked at some of this place’s wartime debates about the holocaust. They make it absolutely clear that there was a high level of awareness of the situation. In a debate on refugees on 19 May 1943, a Home Office Minister said that since the outbreak of the war, 8 million people in Poland had suffered barbarous punishment or death, and many others spoke knowingly of the Nazis’ intention to exterminate the Jewish people.

There is also a palpable sense in these pages of powerlessness with regard to tackling the problems, which were known about, and saving lives. Perhaps that sense of powerlessness has been echoed in this Chamber throughout the decades since. Indeed, I remember the debate on Syria.

In 1939 the merchant ship St Louis set sail from Hamburg with 937 German-Jewish refugees on board, seeking asylum from Nazi persecution. Despite setting off with visas to allow them into Cuba, they were denied access. They set sail for the US and Canada, where access was also denied to them. The St Louis returned to Europe, and at that point the UK agreed to take 288 of the passengers. Others went to Belgium, France and the Netherlands, but following the German invasion of those territories, they were again at risk, and historians estimate that 227 of the asylum seekers on that boat subsequently perished in the holocaust.

What makes the holocaust stand out is not only the sheer number of victims, but the concrete evidence of how the killing was organised and implemented on such a scale. Of great significance is the fact that every Jew was defined not by their religion or their own definition, but by the perpetrators’ definition. Jews were singled out and registered on a central database—its purpose was to expedite their murder—before being publicly marked, stripped of their citizenship, forced to hand over their possessions, dehumanised and, ultimately, deported to their death. I am astonished that the Nazis intended to expand the final solution beyond their borders: they drew up lists of Jews in the USA, Great Britain, Israel and so on. There has never before been such an event in history.

Our political forebears in this place did something, but we have to admit that it was not enough. Debates at that time referred to quotas or the numbers that should come here or go elsewhere in our empire. I am sure the Government of the day thought they were acting for the best, but it simply was not enough. Edmund Burke is attributed with saying that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men—and, indeed, women—to do nothing. We said, “Never again,” and we set up the United Nations to promote world peace, but we have still seen enormous inhumanities unfold in front of our eyes. Even today, we see credible evidence of the organised murder on a horrendous scale of the people of Syria by the state.

In preparing for this speech, I was reminded of one by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in 2008. In it, he reflected on a visit to a museum in Rwanda that commemorates the millions who lost their lives as the world looked the other way. There is a picture of a young boy called David, a 10-year-old who was tortured to death. His last words were, “Don’t worry—the United Nations will come for us”. But, as my right hon. Friend said, we never did. That child believed the best of us, only to discover that the pieties repeated so often, over and over, in reality meant nothing at all. The words “Never again” became a slogan, rather than what they should be—the crucible in which all our values sit and are tested.

My mother, like many of her generation, watched the liberation of the camps on newsreel footage. She was so profoundly moved by what she saw that she ensured that I was educated about it, and she gave me a copy of Anne Frank’s diary when I was about 10 years old. I devoured that book—trying to imagine myself in Anne Frank’s shoes—and I gained a tiny insight into the injustice and inhumanity to which she and her family were subjected. It was a lesson that I hope I have not forgotten. Years later, my mother and I visited Prague. We went to the ghetto, and saw the walls with the names of the 80,000 Jewish victims and the piteous paintings by the children.

I hope that hon. Members will allow me to say that I am neither a moral nor a political coward, but I know myself: I know how that visit, and the ones to Anne Frank’s house and to Dachau, affected me. I have therefore baulked at making the trip referred to by many hon. Members today, but in the light of this debate, I will face up to the challenge and visit Auschwitz-Birkenau before the end of this Parliament with, I hope, the support of the Holocaust Educational Trust.

This year, we mark the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war—the great war, as it was labelled at the time—and we should use the tone of this debate, which I commend, to fend off the revisionism that such occasions sometimes engender. It is widely believed that the treaty of Versailles created the conditions in which fascism emerged into the 1930s, and from which the horrors of the holocaust unfolded. Let us bear that in mind when we assess the events of 100 years ago and let us apply the lessons to our foreign policy when we encounter inhumanity in today’s world.

We know so much about the holocaust. We should be immensely grateful to the Holocaust Educational Trust for providing the resource that we all need. I join others in commending its work and that of Karen Pollock in particular. I am sure that the trust will rise to the challenge of keeping alive and accessible the stories and lessons of the holocaust as the number of survivors sadly dwindles over time. I commend the Government’s continuing commitment to ensuring that the holocaust is never forgotten, including through their funding for the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust under the admirable leadership of Olivia Marks-Woldman. Both trusts play their part in humanising the holocaust. In my view, that is the only way in which we can begin to comprehend such a vast and enduring tragedy.

In the Chamber today, we have heard how Members have comprehended the horror through seeing the piles of shoes or treading the steps into death chambers. For me, it is those paintings by the children in the Prague ghetto. We know so much, and yet we seem to learn so little. As we pause in the week before we mark Holocaust memorial day on 27 January, with its theme of journeys, we should take time to reflect on our global shortcomings and on our tendency to recognise the absolute horror of the holocaust, and yet to allow subsequent genocides to happen with such depressing frequency.

16:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for leading us in this debate. Many of his remarks had a profound effect on me. To summarise, he said that although the holocaust is in many ways a story of hopelessness and humiliation, it also provides many examples of courage, stoicism and, ultimately, the triumph of the human spirit.

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—she is my hon. Friend—in saying that it has been a privilege to listen to all the speeches that have been made in this debate. That is not always our experience in this Chamber, but everyone has listened intently to every word that has been said today. I have been moved by many of the remarks that colleagues have made. We have shared our different experiences, the ways in which we have encountered the holocaust and how we have responded individually. Perhaps more importantly, we have resolved to act together.

The British mainland escaped the horrors of Nazi occupation. Although some European Jews were able to flee here, most notably through the Kindertransport, for most of us the holocaust is not a family experience. I note that it is for some Members who have spoken, but for most of us, our witness and understanding has come through history, literature and perhaps film.

My first knowledge of the holocaust was as a 13-year-old watching the TV series “Holocaust” in the late 1970s. That spurred me to read the only book about the holocaust that I could find at the time, which was “Scourge of the Swastika” by Lord Russell of Liverpool, who was involved in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. I have never forgotten the table of categorisation in that book for the Nazis’ targets for imprisonment and murder. We are all familiar with the yellow star and the armband, but less often mentioned are the colours and symbols that were used for Gypsies, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the disabled. I was most alarmed by the pink triangle for homosexuals, because at that age I was just coming to terms with what I was.

The first reason to remember the holocaust is to understand that minorities are our friends, our neighbours and our work colleagues. In the twisted minds of those who hold a prejudice, the minority could be ourselves. That is why we should be thankful that we live in a society in which human rights are upheld and in which minorities are our fellow citizens, not outsiders who are confined to legal or physical ghettos.

In recent years, mass knowledge of the holocaust has come through the films with which we are all familiar, but literature and celluloid are no substitutes for real-life experience and testimony. We have all mentioned speeches and visits to museums and monuments. I first went to Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1992, when frankly it was not usual to do so, during a visit to Poland while inter-railing. I will never forget it. There were very few visitors at that time, and when we followed the line to Birkenau, I climbed the gatehouse tower and looked at the scale of the camp. To those who have not yet been there I say that that is the memory that will live with them; the scale and the industrialisation of mass murder. I was there entirely on my own—no one else—visiting on a hot summer’s day in 1992, and it gave me my own time of quiet contemplation. It is not a visit I have ever wanted to repeat, but like the shadow Minister, I think it is perhaps something I should now do.

I have since been to Amsterdam and the Anne Frank House, and I have also seen the pink triangle memorial in that city—the only known monument to gay people who were murdered by the Nazis. In 2012, I went to Yad Vashem with the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, and I was familiar with many of the historical displays there. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said that he was profoundly affected by the children’s memorial, and no one could not be. What most affected me was the hall of names, where one looks up at a cone of photographs—hundreds, perhaps thousands, of photographs of people who were wiped out by the Nazis, reflected in a dark pit below. I really could not hold it together on that occasion.

The holocaust is a unique event and must be remembered and understood, particularly by young people for whom it is an historical event that took place long before they were born. It is right for the Government to support that, and many hon. Members have mentioned that they work with the Holocaust Educational Trust, led by Karen Pollock. It facilitates school visits to Auschwitz, as well as talks in schools, such as those that took place in my constituency, to give young people a vivid account and an unforgettable memory. Of course the most powerful testimony comes from holocaust survivors, such as Auschwitz survivor Freddie Knoller, who is still speaking in schools at the age of 92.

Last Monday I joined several other people now in the Chamber—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) mentioned this—at the Holocaust Educational Trust annual Merlyn Rees memorial lecture, to listen to Thomas Harding tell the fascinating story of his Uncle Hanns and the arrest of the Auschwitz commandant, Rudolf Höss. Thomas Harding discussed how people can turn from being loving fathers to murderous monsters. We are all familiar with the phrase from that time and the excuse that was often used about following orders, but he said that that was perhaps better described as people surrendering their capacity to think to others.

In more recent massacres and genocides we have seen how easy it can still be for people in advanced societies to slip from civilised values into thoughtless barbarity, whether in Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, or the current horrific scenes in Syria, where reporters are using the holocaust as a context in which to explain a tragedy unfolding before our eyes. People can still all too easily be led into acts of cruelty and murder.

That is why it is right that this Government—as did the previous Government—support the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, led by Olivia Marks-Woldman. Its annual act of remembrance on 27 January, the date of the liberation of Auschwitz, will be marked around the country on Monday. This year’s theme is journeys, and those of us who have seen at Auschwitz the pile of leather suitcases will certainly appreciate the resonance. Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The Prime Minister has set up the Holocaust Commission, chaired by Mick Davis, president of the Jewish Leadership Council. That is because real-life memories are fading as people who remember the holocaust or who were told stories by their parents die. The work of the commission will be to consider how we can keep that testimony live and real, and ensure that those of the next generation comprehend the history, and also learn how to shape their future.

Next year will also be the 20th anniversary of another horrific episode in the history of Europe: the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. I was particularly struck by the two interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who served with NATO in Bosnia. Last year, my Department supported Ummah Help’s Remembering Srebrenica project. We will continue that support in the next year.

History is not just a moment in time studied for curiosity or even for leisure; it also gives us lessons we should learn. Not learning those lessons is a warning about the future. I will end my remarks by quoting a survivor of Buchenwald and Auschwitz, Elie Wiesel, who went on to win the Nobel peace prize:

“To forget a holocaust is to kill twice.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Before I call Alistair Burt for the closing remarks it would be remiss of me if I did not welcome the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). I believe it is the first time she has spoken at the Dispatch Box as a shadow Minister. I am sure all Members look forward to future speeches, given the power and commitment with which she delivered her speech today.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

16:55

[Alistair Burt]

I am sure all of us echo your remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will comment on the speech by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) in a moment. I am probably more proud to be winding up the debate, having heard it, than I was when I started. I will make five brief points.

First, I commend this debate to any of those who watch our proceedings, whether those in schools thinking about Holocaust memorial day, or young people who want to watch something not just on this issue but on how Parliament works. The debate has been exceptional. We have had personal experiences, family experiences, difficult experiences of some horrors and a collective knowledge of the subject that has been brought about by those who work so hard for us outside, including the Holocaust Educational Trust. The debate has been a model of its kind. I am proud to have led it, but even prouder of the speeches we have heard this afternoon.

Secondly, I would say, “Do fix on the hope.” “Schindler’s List” does not conclude with the death of the little girl in the red dress; it concludes with the generations who were saved by Oscar Schindler and the generations still to come. The personal experiences and journeys referred to by colleagues are a reflection of hope. As the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, the survivors won, not the Nazis. In all our reading on the holocaust, we should fix upon the hope.

Thirdly, we must not believe that it cannot happen again. Above all, we should keep in our minds that it could happen again. It is the evil in human hearts, which is reflected the moment one begins, unjustifiably, to separate someone as the “other”, that provides the opportunity: so long as somebody can be “Untermensch”, so long as someone is not like you, so long as someone is not human, they can be disposed of. As colleagues have said, the world is full of examples, even today, of where that is true, so do not believe that it cannot happen again.

Fourthly, reflect on this: we know about the holocaust for a number of reasons, but two are primary. First, people survived. That is how we know about it: people have their stories. Memorial day and everything we have spoken about today depends on the fact that people survive and can tell their stories. The second, and more difficult thing that people have to remember, is that we know about it because it was stopped. The holocaust did not come to a natural end. People did not suddenly wake up and say, “This is wrong and we must stop doing it.” It was physically stopped. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where there was no physical need to intervene and stop people doing wrong. I do not believe that we do. That is why an international security system exists to protect people. This is something to debate: at what stage do people say, “Enough is enough” and do something about it?

Fifthly, I say. “Do go.” So many of the speeches we have heard today have been influenced and coloured by the fact that we have been to places: the Anne Frank house, Yad Vashem, museums around the world and, above all, Auschwitz. Go and get the sense of what this was about from the physical presence in various places.

It would be the greatest honour for me if I could make my first journey to Auschwitz with the hon. Member for West Ham. Perhaps we could support each other as we go. I would love to take that journey with her.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the House for giving us time for this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.

Rural Fair Share Campaign

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

17:00

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

I rise to present a Rural Fair Share petition on behalf of hundreds of my constituents and supported also by a further 590 online signatures gathered through my website. The East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire contain not only the finest people, but two very well-performing councils that are sadly underfunded. Before I read out the petition, I want to thank Hatty’s teashop in Epworth and Rob McArthur at Snaith chippy, who, while people were buying their pattie and chips, encouraged them to sign the petition.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Brigg and Goole constituency,

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

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

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001316]

Flooding (North Lincolnshire)

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

17:02

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate, which is of great significance to my constituents, many of whom have seen their homes and businesses flooded for the second time in six years. This time, it was a result of a tidal surge; previously it was a result of heavy rain—but if a person’s home is flooded, the source is of little consequence. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks in time to give my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy a couple of minutes to highlight similar issues a little further along the estuary. The Minister has already kindly agreed to that.

The tidal surge that affected the Humber estuary on the night of 5 and 6 December was greater than that of the disastrous floods of February 1953, but thankfully the impact was much less, thanks to the extensive work undertaken in the years since. Clearly, investment in flood defences has been effective, but with severe weather apparently becoming more common, yet more needs to be done—we must not be complacent. The recent surge resulted in major damage to the port of Immingham. Measured by tonnage, the Immingham-Grimsby port complex is the largest in the UK, with about a quarter of all freight moved by rail starting or ending in Immingham. Much of this freight—coal for power stations, oil and other essential products—is of vital strategic importance.

The port was left without electricity, and extensive areas were flooded. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for his visit to Immingham on the afternoon of Saturday 7 December. He heard at first hand from Associated British Ports and Environment Agency staff, and the visit enabled me to brief him about other incidents of flooding in the Barrow Haven and New Holland areas. We heard from the dock master for Immingham and Grimsby, and it is clear that he made the right decision by opening the Grimsby lock gates at exactly the right time, so preventing a large area of Grimsby and the north end of Cleethorpes, where thousands of terraced houses are situated, from being overcome. I lived in one of those terraced houses at the time of the 1953 floods, but I am not old enough to have more than a hazy memory of that terrible time. However, there are many who do recall the devastation and deaths at that time.

The 60th anniversary of the 1953 floods occurred this time last year, and was marked by a special conference held at the Reeds hotel in Barton-upon-Humber and attended by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). The conference was attended by representatives of all the agencies involved, and we went away thankful for what had been achieved and hopeful that we would never witness anything like that again.

On the night of 5 December, the hotel was flooded and has since gone into liquidation, leaving a trail of lost jobs, lost deposits and wedding plans thrown into jeopardy. One cannot but reflect on the irony of that situation. The forced closure of the hotel is a loss for another reason; it was a social enterprise, owned by Odyssey (Tendercare), a local charity that helps and supports cancer victims. A couple of miles from the hotel is the village of Barrow Haven, which is a small community whose focal point is the pub, The Haven Inn, which also finds itself closed for business as a result of flooding.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. Does he share with me concerns about the availability of flood insurance to businesses, particularly small businesses, which are vital to economic growth in our local area? Under the new Government scheme, the Flood Re scheme, small businesses are excluded.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I recognise those problems. I have spoken to a number of businesses that have experienced difficulties with insurance. I agree that we need to look further at this problem.

It is not just businesses that have been affected. Having visited the village on a number of occasions since the floods, I can vouch for many sad stories among the local Barrow Haven residents. It is a miserable experience to visit people in their water-ravaged homes, but how much more miserable for those whose homes have been affected.

Local residents such as Mark and Sarah Kilbee described their particular experience as follows:

“We had no knowledge of the flood, no prior warning. That alone put my husband and me, and our animals, at risk. We lost a large amount of personal possessions we had worked for over the last 15 years. With a warning we could have been better prepared. After the water had arrived we managed to save our cats and dogs by getting them upstairs. We sat on stools in the water all night with no heating or electricity. No one came to help us that night and we watched our possessions float away.”

The council pumped 33,000 gallons of water away from that one property alone, and it is now costing the Kilbees £100 a week to run dryers and humidifiers, which is causing considerable hardship.

I hope that the Minister can assure me that he will instruct the Environment Agency to install sirens in Barrow Haven and other villages along the Humber bank. Text and e-mail alerts are important, but can often be missed until it is too late. If someone’s home or business has been flooded, what they want is an immediate response by the various agencies.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The timing is particularly opportune, as seven weeks after the east coast storm surge, we now have a full picture of the extent of the damage and how well the clear-up and repair costs are going. In Lowestoft in my constituency, a small geographical area was hit very hard. Although the community rallied superbly, it will take many people and many businesses a long time to recover. A concern that I raised for debate before Christmas was that the Bellwin scheme could constrain councils such as North Lincolnshire and Waveney district council in my own area in their work to get communities back on their feet as quickly as possible. Does my hon. Friend agree that to achieve this goal, the tight time scales for carrying out the work should be extended and the bar on capital expenditure should be relaxed? Does he also accept that there may well be a case for increasing the percentage of costs that local councils, such as North Lincolnshire council, can recover?

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am certainly aware that North Lincolnshire council will be assessing the impact of the Bellwin scheme and suggesting possible changes to the Minister. The Minister may wish to comment on that.

North Lincolnshire council responded well in the days immediately after the event, and it was difficult to find a critical word about it. It is appropriate at this point to place on record my thanks to the local community and my appreciation of all who worked very long hours in atrocious conditions—the council, the Environment Agency, the fire and rescue service, the voluntary sector, those working for the utility companies and many more. They all did everything possible to restore services and make people feel as comfortable as possible.

On 23 December I met John Orr, the area manager of the Environment Agency. It was a very helpful meeting, and Mr Orr and his team are currently preparing both a short-term and a long-term strategy to avoid a repeat of last month’s floods. We have agreed that if I arrange a public meeting when the full details are available, in the near future, representatives of the agency will attend the meeting and explain their plans to local people. That is very welcome.

We cannot leave people with the fear that the same thing could happen again for a moment longer than is necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that he will liaise with the agency and ensure that the meeting happens as quickly as possible, because it is at that point that we shall know the full extent and the costs of the work that is required. I realise that he will not want to do the equivalent of signing a blank cheque by saying that he will ensure that everything that is beyond the agency’s existing budget will be funded, but my constituents, quite reasonably, want the Government to recognise that this is a priority.

In the immediate aftermath of the floods, there was a widespread feeling among my constituents that they had been forgotten. That was partly due to the inevitable media focus on the death of Nelson Mandela. BBC local radio, in the shape of Radio Humberside, was first-rate, but my constituents felt that, nationally, the BBC seemed to forget that anything else was happening in the world. Their feeling of neglect was reinforced when the floods that hit many parts of the country during the Christmas period became headline news for days on end.

It is also regrettable that no statement was made to the House in the immediate aftermath of the 5 December floods. I understand that the Environment Secretary wanted to make a statement, but that, for whatever reason, that was not possible. I know that the Government were taking action and making help available where it was necessary, but the lack of an official statement was regrettable. Of course actions speak louder than words, but the feeling of being ignored could so easily have been avoided. I know that the Minister will want to do all that he can to correct that impression, and to give an absolute reassurance that all that is necessary will be done.

The Environment Agency has told me that it has already committed £650,000 to repairs along the south bank of the Humber, including repairs to the stretch of defences between New Holland and Goxhill Haven and between Barrow upon Humber and New Holland. Repairs are now being carried out between Barton-upon-Humber and Barrow upon Humber. Those repairs are due to be completed by March, with further repair work continuing through the year. Repairs are being prioritised, and a risk-based approach is being used in line with the Humber flood risk management strategy.

When I met representatives of the Environment Agency, I found it extremely helpful to do so along with one of the farmers who owned land in the vicinity, because his experience was invaluable. It is often said that the Environment Agency does not make the best possible use of local knowledge, and last Friday, when I met local representatives of the National Farmers Union, that opinion was repeated. A Humber flood forum exists, but there is a feeling that it meets irregularly, and that its collective expertise is not used to best advantage. As the Minister knows, many farmers and local councillors serve on drainage boards. May I urge him to ensure that their collective knowledge is put to the best possible use? Not only businesses and homes but farmers suffered as a result of the floods, losing livestock and grazing land. Perhaps a greater involvement of the farming community would be helpful in future.

Those whose homes or businesses have been flooded do not want to hear politicians debate which Government spent, are spending or will spend more than the other; nor do they want to hear endless arguments about whether the cause is climate change. Whether it is or not, the fact remains that we are experiencing more severe weather events, and my constituents want positive action. Let me take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for meeting me and other local Members of Parliament, and to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), for his help and support.

What my constituents want to hear from the Minister in his reply is a reassurance that everything possible will be done. They want to hear that if additional resources are required, they will be made available; that better use will be made of local knowledge— there is no price tag on that one—and that better warnings will be provided by way of sirens; that if further help is needed to see those affected through the period when they are having to live in temporary accommodation, it will be forthcoming; and that if help is needed to smooth the passage of insurance claims, it will be available.

Actions speak louder than words. I urge the Minister to ensure that those actions happen, and that they do not take too long.

17:15

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

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) for giving me an opportunity to speak for a couple of minutes about the experiences in Brigg and Goole. Whatever the reasons for the flooding, I think we can all agree it was nothing to do with the passage of the same-sex marriage Bill in this place. Whatever the reasons, however, as my hon. Friend said, residents simply want action now. I agree with a great deal of what he said, and congratulate him on securing the debate. The Minister is a very competent Minister. We did not necessarily agree with everything in the Water Bill Committee, but I know he is incredibly competent on this matter and I reiterate to him our invitation to our constituencies to see the clear-up work going on.

My constituency was particularly badly affected when the tidal river Ouse overtopped the banks at Reedness and devastated many homes there. The Dutch river as we call it, but the River Don to others, overtopped at Old Goole. The Trent overtopped and flooded many properties in Burringham, Gunness, Amcotts and Keadby, and the tidal Humber estuary overtopped and devastated about a third of South Ferriby as well as houses in the communities of Winteringham and Burton-upon-Stather. We suffered particularly badly, therefore.

Since then the council has responded very well. I should pay tribute to Councillor Liz Redfern, the leader, who very quickly, having been approached by me, my hon. Friend and ward councillors, agreed to issue £300 to everybody regardless of whether they were insured, to help with the clear-up costs. Those cheques were out and delivered by the end of the following week. The council has also established a £1,000 interest-free loan for anybody who was flooded which they can pay back over a period of five years with no interest at all. The council has done everything it can, therefore, and the parish councils, too, have been incredible in my constituency. It was a privilege to see them in action both on that evening and the day after and the weekend after as I went around visiting flooded properties.

I concur with my hon. Friend about sirens. A lot of people did get warnings, but a lot of constituents either missed them or did not feel they came at the right time. In the community of Reedness, for example, people received flood warnings when the water was already up to their ankles or deeper. The Environment Agency is pursuing those issues.

There are two particular issues I want to raise with the Minister, but before doing so I should say that another issue I will be writing to him about is to do with the CEMEX plant at South Ferriby. I have not given him prior notice of that, but it was truly devastated when the Humber came over. Some £30 million-worth of damage was caused to that big local employer. Although it has said absolutely that it is committed to bringing that plant back into action, it will struggle, and it may require and seek some assistance. It has approached the council but the council simply does not have the resources, so I will be pursuing that separately.

The first of the major issues is where we go now with the Humber flood risk management strategy, a document I have been involved with since its inception some years ago when I was a local councillor. It identifies particular locations in my constituency, especially the bank at Reedness, which is significantly lower in part than in other communities, and there is a feeling that that dip in the bank of about 9 or 10 inches was the reason why it was flooded and other communities were not. There is the same situation at South Ferriby and the South Ferriby to Winteringham stretch. The Humber strategy is a good strategy because it talks about maintaining and improving defences over the next 15 to 20 years. The policies adopted for those two sections are welcome, but they were adopted in 2008 and we have not yet seen a clear timetable of when the funding is going to come forward.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I accept the importance of flood defences and in some respects flood resilience measures, which the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but does he agree that just as important is ongoing maintenance? We have to have that ongoing maintenance from the EA week in, week out.

[Andrew Percy]

In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes—and particularly in mine, which is very susceptible to flooding—that maintenance has gone on. With the exception of a concrete culvert at Keadby, we saw no breaches of our defences. They did the job they were designed to do, and they are designed to a very high standard. They have been damaged since, which is important, but from a maintenance point of view the banks did the job they were designed to do. With rising sea levels, the issue is that they might not be sufficient and we want to see this investment brought forward.

My final point is on internal drainage board assets. I met representatives of the drainage board at Reedness two weeks ago. The board suffered significant damage to its assets when the embankment was breached there, and it is not clear yet how it will fund the recovery works. I would like a bit more clarity on that and have tabled a parliamentary question on the matter. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

17:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate and on the way in which, as the local Member of Parliament, he has been there for his constituents and raised issues here and with local agencies and helped in any way he could. I thank hon. Members across the House for all that they have done to support their local communities and for passing to me and my colleagues and officials any information that needed to be passed back.

The coastal surge that struck the eastern coast of England on the night of 5 to 6 December was a significant flood event in terms of scale and was highly significant to those who bore the brunt of it and the economic, societal and emotional cost of flooding. My thoughts and those of hon. Members across the House are with those people who experienced that, and with people across the country who experienced other events in the weeks that followed, which we also heard about from my hon. Friend.

The coastal surge is estimated to have caused flooding of around 2,600 properties, although this figure is subject to change as the recovery effort progresses. Our thoughts are with all those who have been affected by high winds and whose homes and businesses were damaged during the powerful storms. However, through investment by Government and improvements to the way we manage this type of flooding, we were able to protect up to 800,000 properties countrywide that would otherwise have been flooded. It was reassuring to hear that, in many cases the defences functioned as they should have done and the agencies were there for people, although of course where things could have been better I reassure hon. Members that they will be better in the future. I thank them for raising issues with me.

There was a multi-agency response to this event, with all relevant authorities pulling together to protect people and their property. I am grateful for the excellent response from our front-line emergency services, including the police and fire services, the Environment Agency, and local authorities. I would like to praise the work of the flood forecasting centre, which is run jointly by the Met Office and the Environment Agency. Over 160,000 homes and businesses received a flood warning and advice in advance to enable them to put their flood plans into action. The combination of accurate forecasting and extensive planning and preparation allowed us to co-ordinate the response to ensure the focus was on protecting communities at risk and on the key infrastructure that supports them.

The flooding on 5 December 2013 caused overtopping of defences around the Humber estuary and the tidal Trent, flooding land and properties behind. However, the defences performed well and no breaches occurred, limiting the extent of the flooding. Initial reports from the local recovery co-ordinating group indicate that 347 properties and 47 businesses were flooded in North Lincolnshire. However, the full impacts are still being assessed. Particularly affected communities included South Ferriby, Burringham, Keadby, Gunness, Reedness and Barrow Haven. Hon. Members will correct my pronunciation if I have got it wrong. As a Cornishman, I find some of these things a little difficult, but I am sure they will forgive me if I have mispronounced.

A number of roads, including the A1077, and the railway line to Barton-upon-Humber were also affected and closed for a period of time. Flooding events have economic and other impacts that cause annoyance for those who may not have been immediately flooded, and we have to consider those impacts as well. My thoughts go out to all those who were affected, especially given the timing of the event just before Christmas.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the hon. Member for Cleethorpes at Immingham docks on 7 December to see first hand how local communities and businesses along the south Humber bank were affected by the flooding. At Immingham port, the Environment Agency, the local authority and Associated British Ports are working to assess the damage and work out a reinstatement programme.

The Environment Agency issued flood warnings along the entire stretch of the south Humber bank and the tidal Trent on the morning of 5 December. Three severe flood warnings were issued to nearly 4,000 properties in parts of Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Humberston. A further seven severe flood warnings were issued to over 4,000 properties along the tidal Trent. Although parts of the south Humber bank experienced significant flooding from the overtopping of defences, no severe flood warnings were issued in those areas. That was because the Environment Agency issues a severe flood warning only if there is a danger to life. The forecast received on 5 December did not warrant a severe flood warning as only overtopping of the defences was predicted. Had a breach been forecast which would have posed a danger to life severe flood warnings would have been issued.

The Minister with responsibility for flood recovery, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), chaired a meeting of key Ministers on Tuesday 7 January this year to ensure that a co-ordinated approach was being taken to assist communities recovering from recent flood events. The Bellwin scheme has been opened to enable local authorities to submit claims for costs incurred in the emergency response phase to protect lives and properties. So far, 41 local authorities—including North Lincolnshire—have registered their intention to submit a claim under the Bellwin scheme. A number of local Members have asked questions in this place and elsewhere about the operation of that scheme, about what triggers it and about what it does and does not cover. My hon. Friend the Minister is taking those questions into account, and the Local Government Association is also raising some of those issues with the Government. We will of course want to work with people on that.

Last Friday, 17 January, an additional funding package of £6.7 million was made available for local authorities affected by recent flooding and severe weather. This new money builds on financial assistance already made available to councils under the Bellwin scheme, and will top up support to cover the costs of clearing up after severe weather and flooding. Further details of how local authorities can apply to the £6.7 million severe weather recovery fund will be issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government shortly. Additionally, my hon. Friend the Minister is inviting leaders of local authorities affected by the severe weather to meetings over the coming weeks to discuss the challenges and the support that I have outlined.

As well as providing updates to communities and local farmers, Environment Agency staff have been attending parish council meetings and holding drop-in events to keep communities updated on local defence repairs. An immediate programme of repair work has been developed for the south Humber bank. Before Christmas, repairs were carried out by the Environment Agency where they were most needed. The rate of repair has accelerated as resources, materials and, importantly, access have become available in the subsequent weeks. The repairs are being prioritised using a risk-based approach, in line with the Humber flood risk management strategy. Repairs to the stretch of defences between New Holland and Goxhill Haven, and between Barrow upon Humber and New Holland, are progressing well. I am pleased to hear from the Environment Agency that it is continuing to receive support from local landowners, which is allowing it to carry out those works more quickly.

The agency is updating its Humber flood risk management strategy, which deals with the long-term justification, funding and solutions for the management of flood risk to communities along the Humber. The agency will ensure that all data and learning from the recent flooding is collected, evaluated and used in the development of the updated strategy. It is important to say that, in government, a lessons-learned exercise is being carried out, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy, to look at issues related to this incident of coastal flooding and the other incidents that we have had in the past couple of months.

I understand that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes has had a number of meetings and progress updates with the local Environment Agency area manager, as he has mentioned, to discuss the flooding and a way forward in more detail. If the hon. Gentleman or his constituents identify any further needs, I will ensure that the Environment Agency takes them into account, as part of its Humber flood risk management strategy update. He particularly referred to warning sirens, and I will take the opportunity to raise that issue with the agency, so that it can be taken into account as those discussions proceed.

The Environment Agency continues to assess the damage to flood defences across the country, and we look at the resources that will be necessary to fund that work, but it is crucial that, as we have invested money in these assets over decades, we ensure that they are functioning. I was pleased to hear from hon. Members that those defences were in a good state of repair and performed the task for which they were designed.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred to insurance for businesses. I understand the concern, but the Flood Re scheme is focused on residential property. Indeed, it is funded by a levy on the residential insurance market, so we must be careful about saying that we would use that mechanism to support small businesses, as the money comes from residential customers. Many specialist brokers out there are working to help to find solutions for the commercial market. Obviously, I would be happy to do anything to help in discussions with the insurance industry, but the Flood Re scheme is focused on residential properties.

With the little bit of time available, I will focus on some of the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes. On making better use of local knowledge, as I have said, the Environment Agency is out there, meeting parish councils and local groups. It also has regular contact with internal drainage boards. If any issue is raised there that people do not feel is taken into account, we will, of course, make use of that in future.

My impression, having visited some of the areas that have been flooded around the country in various events in recent weeks, is that people feel that the information provided by the Environment Agency was very good and the warnings were timely and that the understanding of those catchments and coastal areas is very good, but of course we take that point away.

On funding, I have said that we want to ensure that we have the money to make sure that the defences are brought up to—

17:31

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Westminster Hall

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

Thursday 23 January 2014

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Human Rights

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Fourth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, The FCO’s Human Rights Work in 2012, HC 267, and the Government Response, Cm 8762.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mark Simmonds.)

13:30

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Chope. Last October, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs published its annual critique of the human rights work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Office responded in December, and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate the report.

In today’s unpredictable world, striking the right balance between protecting our national interests and holding true to our values, on domestic shores as well as abroad, is a tough call, but what is certain is that we live in an age of unparalleled transparency and instant global dissemination of news and analysis. To win an argument credibly in this fast-paced environment, consistency is key. The Foreign Secretary’s speech to the Royal United Services Institute on human rights and counter-terrorism last year sums up that dichotomy. He talked of sharing intelligence with countries that do not always share our values, to keep our citizens safe, but added that Britain must build a series of

“justice and human rights partnerships”

with such countries. That is a better alternative than boycotting regimes that are on a very different page where human rights and law enforcement are concerned.

We must not underestimate Ministers’ accountability to Parliament and the wider public. That is particularly true in the case of deportation with assurances, when we collaborate with countries that have little regard for human rights. Human rights organisations have raised concerns that assurances from countries where torture is widespread are inherently unreliable. David Mepham of Human Rights Watch, which published an excellent report this week providing summaries of principal human rights concerns in more than 90 countries worldwide, described the system as “lacking in credibility”.

We think that the provisions for monitoring the welfare of those returned under deportation with assurances, or DWA, arrangements could be strengthened. Some of the bodies supposed to be carrying out that monitoring do not instil universal confidence, such as the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission. The UK Court of Appeal found that it could not be trusted to report deliberate breaches by the Ethiopian Government, yet the Foreign Office says in its response that it is satisfied that the commission is fit for purpose. With regard to other countries, our agreement with Algeria makes no provision for formal post-return monitoring; British embassy staff do it. We want to be sure that embassy staff have the training that they need, and I am pleased that the Government have given that reassurance in their response.

We risk the accusation of double standards if we allow UK commercial interests to proceed without restraint in developing and exporting equipment that has the capacity to inhibit free speech on the internet. Two years ago, Amnesty International highlighted credible allegations that businesses were supplying technology to countries that were stifling free speech, including Egypt, Libya, China and Iran. We welcome the Government’s response, which confirms that they are working towards an internationally agreed and implemented list of controlled equipment and guidance for officials in carrying out due diligence when developing Government-led commercial and security relationships overseas. Working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Foreign Office should be ready to intervene by controlling exports if there is obvious potential for abuse by end users.

In that spirit of greater accountability, we welcome the Foreign Office’s decision to define more clearly the criteria for countries of concern. Its authoritative analysis of conditions in those countries is to be congratulated, but the Committee questions why the extent of our engagement in a particular country, or the impact of the human rights situation there on our interests, should be regarded as factors in evaluating human rights standards.

Our report considers more closely three countries on the list: Sri Lanka, Burma and Russia. Sri Lanka courted particular controversy as the venue for the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary attended, as well as His Royal Highness Prince Charles. The Committee felt that the previous Government displayed a striking lack of consistency in 2009 by objecting to the proposal that Sri Lanka might host the 2011 meetings on human rights grounds but not to the proposal that it might host the 2013 meetings. That appears timid.

The Foreign Office should have taken a more principled stance in 2009 and, to be fair to my Opposition colleagues, a more robust stand after 2011. However, in the circumstances, I believe that the Prime Minister was right to attend, but only on the condition that he press the authorities relentlessly on human rights and seek assurances that people who spoke out on human rights were not harassed by security forces. Will the Minister confirm that assurances were indeed given and observed?

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

Having spoken about Sri Lanka, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reflect a little on the situation in Burma?

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will come to Burma shortly.

More disappointing was the Government’s answer to the question whether they still hold the view that there is no substantiated evidence of Sri Lankans returned home from the UK being tortured or maltreated. Simply stating that the Foreign Office is not aware of any new evidence since the original answer was submitted ducks the issue. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by “the original answer”? Can he give us an assurance about cases that occurred before that time?

I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Burma, like Sri Lanka, attracted widespread media coverage following the historic visit of Aung San Suu Kyi in summer 2012. We believe that the EU’s decision to lift economic sanctions the following year was the right one, given the remarkable progress made in that country. However, that comes with a caveat.

The UK should not hesitate to advocate the reimposition of sanctions if undertakings on human rights are not followed through. Serious reservations remain about the continued incarceration of political prisoners and the failure to bring those responsible for intercommunal violence to justice. Will the Minister update us on the release of political prisoners and accountability for the shocking crimes in Rakhine state?

On Russia, with less than a month to go before the 2014 winter Olympics in Sochi, the Committee, which did not support a boycott, hopes that the UK will use the occasion as a platform for voicing concerns about human rights abuses. The recent release of high-profile prisoners in Russia, including Pussy Riot, the Greenpeace activists and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, suggests that Russia is receptive—cynically, perhaps—to cases that damage its reputation internationally. Khodorkovsky said himself that his release could not symbolise that there were no political prisoners left in Russia, as much of the Government’s crackdown on human rights continues unabated. I welcome the decision this morning to release Platon Lebedev, but the financial claim of 17.5 million roubles against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev effectively blocks their return to Russia.

It is clear to us, from Russia’s example in particular, that public opinion matters, and public opinion is informed largely by the media through broadcasts and the internet. As we on the Committee have pointed out several times, the BBC World Service makes a huge contribution to the projection of the UK’s values and strengths around the globe, which is why the evidence presented to us about levels of disruption of media freedom not seen since the cold war is extremely worrying.

Of the 47 countries examined by Freedom House in its survey on internet freedom, 20 had experienced a negative trajectory since January 2011. Bahrain, Pakistan and Ethiopia showed the greatest declines, but the countries making the most comprehensive efforts to frustrate the BBC World Service’s overseas broadcasts were Iran and China. We believe that it would be astonishing if the services were to be diminished because of a lack of resources to protect broadcasts from interference. The BBC says that it will review the plans once the licence fee funding begins.

Providers of satellite services also have an interest: if they cannot provide a service to the broadcaster they risk losing out financially. In our opinion, satellite providers, and not only those directly affected by jamming, should invest in the necessary technology. Given that national interests are at stake, the Government should be encouraging them to do so.

I would like to end on a high note. The championing of women’s rights across the globe is a major success story for the British Government. We join others in commending the Foreign Secretary for driving the prevention of sexual violence in conflict initiative and for committing millions to fund human rights projects last year. We strongly welcome the team of UK experts ready to be deployed in conflict areas. We support their work in helping to build national capacity in investigating allegations of sexual violence and gathering evidence to help victims. We are pleased that the Government say they will encourage other countries to contribute personnel and funding as demand increases.

However, legislation in Afghanistan outlawing violence against women is not a big step forward if it is not implemented. As a Committee, we are not as optimistic as the Foreign Office that progress will be made once international security assistance force troops have withdrawn. We believe that a reversal is possible. The emphasis should now be on ensuring that the gains made are not reversed.

Safeguarding democracy and human rights is a thread that runs through every aspect of this country’s external relations, whether political, humanitarian, commercial, or security-based. The Foreign Office is doing an excellent job in trying circumstances, whether it is communicating its values through the media, standing up for women’s rights internationally or ensuring that UK companies incorporate human rights into their deals.

However, with every step that the Foreign Office makes in the right direction, increasingly sophisticated threats are pushing the other way. Just like viruses that become resistant to antibiotics, terrorists are constantly finding ways to undermine safeguards that we put in place to keep our people from harm. As the challenges grow tougher, the Foreign Office would do well to remember the sentiment expressed by our Foreign Secretary in his RUSI address: through the good times and the bad times, we must never lose sight of our values.

13:43

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) on his speech and on his work as Chair of our Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I agree with him on some things and, as he will not be surprised to hear, disagree on others.

I chair the all-party parliamentary human rights group, which closely monitors and works with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a number of related issues. I welcome the many programmes and policies that the FCO continues to undertake around the world to protect and promote human rights, including fundamental political and civil rights, good governance, the rule of law and accountability for violations, as well as the protection of women’s rights, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and minority rights.

The first thing I would like to say is that despite the FCO’s having previously agreed with the Foreign Affairs Committee that evaluation is important, the 2012 FCO human rights report does not appear to reflect a more analytical approach. Overall, I feel that human rights reports are too focused on detailing activities being undertaken or funded by the FCO in the field of human rights and reciting current priorities, without going that step further. I would particularly like to see more evaluation of what has worked in terms of policies and programmes, and of how and why they have worked.

For instance, the FCO details its capacity-building programme in countries and with Government institutions whose human rights records are wanting—for example, in relation to police training in Afghanistan; police training in Baghdad to develop a more effective police response to incidents involving violence against women; the multi-year UK-led programme to strengthen capacity to tackle terrorism through the criminal justice system in Pakistan; and the police and prison reform project in Uzbekistan. It would be useful to know what precise impact those projects have had in those countries.

I would also like the FCO to do more to explain what policies and measures it is adopting to prevent potential future crises, particularly in countries where there are long-standing human rights violations that are not being addressed. Many are particularly concerned about the situation in Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, central Asia and Eritrea becoming much worse. I think the FCO should, in the first instance, look at whether lessons can be learned from the fall-out from the Arab spring and explore whether transition and consolidation activities and strategies are sufficiently incorporated in country business plans. Are there any lessons to be learned from the Arab spring about how the UK deals with authoritarian regimes more generally?

I would also like there to be further analysis of how competing foreign policy interests are prioritised and when they can and cannot be reconciled. The FCO seems to believe that human rights, geopolitical and strategic considerations, energy security and trade promotion can all be pursued simultaneously, maintaining that

“We cannot achieve long-term security and prosperity unless we uphold our values”,

when that quite clearly is not always the case.

That is even reflected in the FCO human rights report. Although the chapter on Saudi Arabia was beefed up in comparison with the previous year’s report, it still contains numerous qualifications to tone criticism down, such as references to “cultural sensitivities”, which are mentioned nowhere else in the report. It is also incomprehensible to me why no mention is made of the complete lack of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in Saudi; such a lack is mentioned in the chapter on Iran. If the FCO wants to take a more conciliatory approach in the report in relation to some countries, it should explain why.

[Rory Stewart]

I am interested in the observation that it is very difficult to square the circle and simultaneously do security, human rights and economic development. Nevertheless, there is clearly an issue there. Does the right hon. Lady have her own way of expressing that? Perhaps she has a better formulation that she would prefer the Foreign Office to have to square that circle. Is there some other way of describing foreign policy, other than in those terms?

[Ann Clwyd]

Mr Chope, will you explain whether, when somebody makes an intervention, that is taken off the speaking time? I see that the clock kept running.

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

There is no time limit, other than the self-restraint that I know hon. Members will exercise, recognising that a lot of people want to participate in the debate. Although there is no requirement that the debate must finish after one and a half hours, I hope that it will, so that we have an equal amount of time for the second debate. I hope that that helps the right hon. Lady.

[Ann Clwyd]

Thank you, Mr Chope.

I turn to the criteria for designating countries of concern, which perhaps in part will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I am pleased that the FCO has provided the criteria it uses to make its designations in the 2012 human rights report. I remain baffled, however, that Bahrain, given the continuing serious violations that were committed during the period that the report covers, was not added as a country of concern. I reiterate the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“If there is no significant progress by the start of 2014, the Government should designate Bahrain as a ‘country of concern’”.

Let us hope that the meeting held last week between Bahrain’s Crown Prince and the main opposition leaders signals the willingness of the Bahraini Government and the opposition to engage in meaningful negotiations, leading to meaningful political reform, greater political openness, fairer representation and the end of discrimination. If it does not, I suggest that it is time to get much tougher with Bahrain.

The Foreign Affairs Committee Chair mentioned deportation with assurances, which is a very important point, because the FCO seems satisfied with existing arrangements and has rejected suggestions made by our Committee to strengthen the monitoring process for people returned under those arrangements, including to Ethiopia and Algeria. I urge the FCO to look at the matter again, and remind it that a DWA agreement was also concluded with Libya during the time of Colonel Gaddafi and was seen at the time as perfectly fine. I doubt, for instance, that, as the Chair said, a domestic human rights institution in Ethiopia that is widely known to be ineffective can be trusted to monitor the well-being of those returned to Ethiopia under the agreement.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be much more careful about deporting people to countries that are not signatories to the convention on torture, as a way of protecting them against that and protecting our own legal position?

[Ann Clwyd]

Yes, I absolutely agree with that observation. Indeed, I think that these arrangements are of political significance and warrant some form of parliamentary control. The non-statutory nature of the memorandums of understanding involved does not prevent parliamentary scrutiny. I would also welcome the FCO’s reporting back to Parliament annually on how effective the monitoring arrangements have been and whether any allegations of abuse have been reported to it.

Like many of my colleagues, I look forward to receiving the findings of the independent investigation being undertaken by David Anderson QC into this policy, although I wonder why it has taken so long to get that investigation off the ground.

The Foreign Affairs Committee Chair also mentioned women’s rights. I join him in commending the Foreign Secretary for taking a lead with the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, but I would like to know whether and how the FCO will involve more UK parliamentarians, particularly in the light of the conference to be held in London in June this year. Women’s organisations are also questioning how the preventing sexual violence initiative and the conference can galvanise support for grass-roots women’s organisations in countries of concern.

Further to the women’s rights agenda, I think that we all need to focus on how to help to support women, including women MPs and civil society more generally, in Afghanistan during and after the NATO withdrawal. Sadly, I do not believe that it is “mission accomplished”. The real gains made for women in the past decade are fragile, and women are likely to become increasingly exposed in coming years. I have seen what has happened in Iraq. I criticise the lack of ongoing support for women in Iraq who are exercising their mandates as Members of Parliament with considerable difficulties. I would like to know what precisely we are continuing to do in Iraq before we start making promises about what we will continue to do in Afghanistan.

I would like to conclude with two points. The first is my concern about growing restrictions in many countries around the world on non-violent civil society activity, including, as Amnesty highlighted recently, the proliferation of “national security” and “public order” legislation aimed at restricting the space in which civil society operates. I would like to know whether the FCO has or is planning to put in place a strategy to counter those negative developments and to provide even more support to beleaguered civil societies in a number of countries. Without a thriving and diverse civil society, democracy is very unlikely to take root.

Similarly, I would like to reiterate concerns expressed by Human Rights Watch about Governments who adopt a feigned democracy, championing elections but rejecting basic principles: that laws apply to those in power and that Governments should respect free speech and uphold the rights of unpopular minorities in their countries.

Secondly, I must take issue with what the FCO report says about promoting “our” values, because what we are doing is promoting universal values. In this connection, I must stress how unhelpful the negative domestic discourse about human rights and universal values is. The UK does not exist in a bubble; what we do and say on human rights is seen not only by those in the UK, but by the rest of the world.

How can we take Russia to task, for example, for not respecting international human rights when we seem only too willing to disparage “universal values” and the rules-based international system when they do not suit us? The “Do as we say, not as we do” approach is unlikely to be very persuasive with others and is very likely to harm us all in the longer term. Without greater respect for human rights worldwide, we are likely to have to deal with more instability, more humanitarian crises, more radicalism and a less secure environment for UK business.

13:56

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) who, as we know, has made such a signal contribution to the advancement of human rights.

As we know, Mao Tse-tung, who was one of history’s worst human rights abusers, enjoined his followers to carry around his little red book. My personal alternative to the little red book, although I do not always manage to carry it around with me, is the Vienna declaration on human rights, which was made on 25 June 1993 and subsequently endorsed by the UN General Assembly in UN resolution 48/121.

For me, the most critical article in the declaration is article 5, which states the key principle of the universality of human rights overriding religious, cultural and ethnic traditions. The article reads:

“All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

In the decades since the end of world war two, we have made significant advances around the world in establishing the principle of the universality of human rights, but it seems to me that we are now in danger of standing still or perhaps even going backwards. When one looks around the world and sees the degree of conflict still taking place between religions and within religions, and on an ethnic and tribal basis, when one sees parts of the world—for example, parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan—where women’s and girl’s rights are now going backwards, and when there are so many countries in the world in which women’s and girl’s rights barely exist, if they exist at all, one wonders whether the principle of universality is being reversed. The first question I would like to ask the Minister is whether the British Government, and in particular the Foreign Secretary, who has lead responsibility, will create a new initiative with as many countries as possible to stand up for the key principle that the universality of human rights should override all other considerations.

I turn to what I consider to be one of the most important aspects of human rights policy: the British Government’s policy on giving export licence approval to military goods, and dual-use civil and military goods, that can be used for internal repression and the suppression of human rights. Until the week before last, the Government’s policy appeared to be soundly based. The Foreign Secretary told the Committees on Arms Export Controls on 7 February 2012:

“We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression.”

There were therefore two controls. The first—a very limited control—was to establish a clear risk, which is endlessly debatable. The second—a much wider, more substantive and more embracing control—was to determine whether a given export might be used to facilitate repression. That approach faithfully followed the key policy of the previous Government, which was set out in a written answer on 26 October 2000 by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain).

Much to the surprise of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, however, the Foreign Secretary’s oral evidence of 8 January substantially reinterpreted the policy statement that he gave in February 2012. He told the Committees that the limited clear-risk policy applied to all aspects of the policy. In effect, therefore, he was saying that the much more substantial and all-embracing control of whether an export might be used to facilitate internal repression would be governed by clear risk—and would, I believe, be rendered more or less null and void. The question for the House, from a human rights standpoint, is how satisfactory or otherwise it is for the Government to rely solely on a clear-risk control for exports that could be used for internal repression.

I want to put that to the test in an area that has been the subject of much concern, namely the export of dual-use chemicals to Syria. Such exports have taken place since 2004 under the previous Government and the present Government, but I want to focus on the most contentious of all: the export of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride to Syria in January 2012, which was well after the outbreak of the civil war. When we raised our concerns about that with the Business Secretary in December, he replied, much to our surprise:

“in this case I think we are talking about bog-standard chemicals, which the officials had absolutely no reason whatever to believe had any connection with chemical weapons or were likely to be used in that capacity.”

That comment was made against the following background: first, those chemicals are well known from open sources to be precursor chemicals for the manufacture of sarin; secondly, Syria was and is known to be a major holder of chemical weapons; thirdly, Syria was a known non-signatory of the chemical weapons convention; and, fourthly, at the time at which those export licences were approved, a major and most brutal civil war was taking place in Syria. I would add a fifth point: the Prime Minister subsequently revealed in his statement last August, following the appalling sarin attack on 21 August, that there had been 14 previous uses of sarin in Syria, dating back to 2012. The Business Secretary says even now that those were simply bog-standard chemicals that it was perfectly reasonable to export to Syria. I have to say that if that is how the clear-risk policy operates, it is hardly worth the paper it is written on. I am sure that the Committees on Arms Export Controls will return to that issue, which has profound human rights dimensions.

I want to refer to Bahrain, which the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), and I had a meeting with the Bahraini Opposition earlier this week. I believe that Bahrain is at a tipping point. It could go downhill into the serious internal civil strife that we have seen in too many other parts of the middle east, focusing on Sunni and Shi’a. Equally—I still believe that this is a real possibility—it could become a standard bearer in the middle east for the peaceful resolution of such issues and the establishment of an inclusive, fully engaged political process in which all major sectarian groups can participate.

The climate for bringing about the second outcome, which we all wish to see achieved, will take place in a headwind, because over the past year or more in the middle east, we have seen an ever-increasing degeneration into strife between Sunni and Shi’a. Sunnis have become more and more fearful and paranoid about sharing power with Shi’as, and Shi’as have become ever more fearful and paranoid about sharing power with Sunnis. I suggest that the only counter to that will be for the friends of Bahrain, which certainly include Britain, to give fresh impetus and new support to all parties in Bahrain on reaching a peaceful outcome and finding a settlement that is fair and reasonable to all parties. I urge the British Government to play a full role in achieving that.

I turn briefly to children’s rights. I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I am an unpaid adviser to the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report recommended

“that the Foreign Secretary appoint a child rights expert to his Advisory Group on Human Rights”.

In their response, the Government effectively rejected that recommendation on the grounds that

“many—if not all—of the group’s members are familiar”,

supposedly,

“with child rights issues.”

I consider that to be a disappointingly superficial and facile reply to the Committee’s recommendation. The disturbing but inescapable reality is that, in this electronic age, criminals facilitating child abuse are adopting ever more sophisticated means of making money through corrupting and abusing children, and they are doing so ahead of the steps that the prosecution services and law enforcement agencies can take against them.

The Prime Minister has rightly seen fit to appoint a special adviser on child protection issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). She has done outstanding work on the issue and continues to do so. I hope that the Minister will convey to the Foreign Secretary that he would be well advised to follow in the Prime Minister’s footsteps.

I am delighted that the present Government are continuing the practice started by the previous Government —most commendably by the late Robin Cook, when he was Foreign Secretary—of producing an annual report on human rights. It is essential work. I appreciate the fact that it involves a lot of work for officials, for which I thank them, but such a report is key to maintaining the credibility of the British Government on human rights issues, both in this country and worldwide. Human rights are the universal entitlement of every man, woman and child on this planet.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call Mike Gapes, may I say that we shall start the Front-Bench speeches at around 2.40 pm?

14:11

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The universal values of the 1948 universal declaration of human rights are under attack and are being eroded. That is partly due to some issues and conflicts that have already been touched upon, but, unfortunately, it is also due to the shift of economic and political power and influence in the world, which is moving away from the transatlantic agenda of those who wrote the declaration towards other regions of the world with different political histories and traditions. We will have a big fight in this century to maintain those universalist human rights values. It is important, however, that we recognise that there are countries in south and east Asia that are democratic and pluralistic and hold to those values. Such countries include the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, which I recently visited, where people believe in democracy, pluralism and human rights. It is important that we recognise the fact that we have friends in that part of the world and work with them.

I want to make three points. Mention has already been made of Sri Lanka. Members will know that for a long time I have taken an interest in what happened at the end of the civil war there. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), has already referred to some of the issues, so I will not repeat his comments, but it is clear that the Commonwealth did not confront the situation in Sri Lanka in a good way. The question now is whether or not, by March, the Government of Sri Lanka will come forward with credible proposals, as called for by the Prime Minister. If not, the British Government have said that they will refer the matter to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The council has not always had a good record, although the Human Rights Watch report that I saw yesterday refers to an improvement, which I think reflects recent changes to its membership. However, several authoritarian friends of the Rajapaksa family sit on the council, so I am not necessarily convinced that that route will get the solution we want.

Will the Minister address the issue of Sri Lanka in his reply and let us know what is going to happen if its Government do not come forward with a credible, independent inquiry into the events of 2009? Many countries around the world have been calling for such an inquiry, not just the Tamil diaspora. Another mass grave was discovered in a place called Mannar in December. I understand that so far 31 skulls have been discovered, placed on top of each other. Another mass grave was discovered in the centre of Sri Lanka a year ago. It is quite clear that there are questions to be answered about the firing in the so-called no fire zone and the deaths of 40,000 people there in early 2009, just five years ago.

My friend, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, touched on the other issue that will confront us perhaps for decades: the turmoil in the Muslim world. I do not mean just the Arab world, but the wider Muslim world. Iran is, of course, an important contributor to the debate in terms not just of its influence in Bahrain, but its role in supporting Hezbollah, which fights on behalf of Assad in Syria. So far in Syria, 125,000 people have died. Millions are internally displaced, and millions more are refugees. We know what the situation is and we all bear responsibility. The international community has failed the democratic, peaceful activists, women and men, who were calling for change just three years ago. We have failed them. Non-intervention also has consequences; it does not mean that Syria is nothing to do with us. All we can do is say, “We did not help you at your time of need when you were calling for help in 2011.” As a result of that non-intervention, the situation is now much, much worse.

We used to talk about the Arab spring; we are not talking about it anymore. We have probably entered a period of turmoil and unrest that will have inconceivable consequences. Let us look at Egypt. Human Rights Watch has produced an interesting report in which it uses the phrase “abusive majoritarianism.” That is a very interesting concept. The report says, quite rightly, that the Muslim Brotherhood Morsi Government behaved in a sectarian, undemocratic manner towards women and civil society groups in Egypt. However, the military then used the pretext of the mass protests against that regime in order to stage a coup. The British Government do not use the term “coup”—at least, I am not sure that they do; the American Administration certainly do not—but we must be absolutely clear that that is what happened. The regime that is now in charge has killed many more people than were killed in the worst periods under the Mubarak regime. There is terrible violence, but there is also terrorism against police officers and others in Egypt, coming from the Islamist extremists. Egypt, a large country with lots of neighbours, is potentially in a very dangerous position.

In 2012, I went to Egypt with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I was fortunate to be able to go from Egypt to Tunisia. Tunisia has had its difficulties, but it has shown how the transition and internal issues can be dealt with in a peaceful, pluralistic way. There are lessons there and there are alternatives.

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

rose—

[Mike Gapes]

I am afraid that I will not give way because of the time. I want to conclude my remarks in order to be fair to others who wish to speak.

Finally, I want to say that the Government and all parties in the House can be proud that we raise human rights issues internationally. However, I find it disconcerting when there are regimes in Russia and elsewhere, and certain countries in Africa, which are able to quote back at us part of our domestic debate as a way to justify their own bad behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley touched on that issue, and it is right that she did so. Some of our politicians need to be a little more internationalist in the way they approach some of our debates about refugees, economic migrants and people from different communities living together in harmony, because sometimes words may be taken out of context and used by authoritarian people around the world to justify their own behaviour.

14:20

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, he knows everything there is to know about foreign affairs, so I hesitate to follow him.

I begin by strongly supporting the Committee’s recommendation that the extent of the UK’s engagement in a particular country, or the impact of the human rights situation in that country on wider UK interests, should no longer be included in the criteria used to identify countries to be placed on the list of countries of concern. I can see no case for a country’s inclusion being dependent on whether the UK can—as Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State, said in her evidence to the Committee—“make a difference”. Apart from anything else, many of the countries already on the list have seen little or no improvement despite being categorised as a country of concern and therefore presumably having been pressed further by the UK to improve human rights.

No one pretends that it is easy to effect change in brutal regimes that are strangers to the concept of basic human rights, but bringing UK interests into the equation, in the way that that is being done, devalues our own commitment as a country to the need to uphold universal human rights. For example, Bahrain has already been mentioned by several colleagues and I have had strong representations from constituents who believe that it should be rated as a country of concern because of human rights abuses. However, they also believe that that is not being done because of the UK’s interests in selling military equipment to Bahrain. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how that can be classified as an objective evaluation, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office says is the case in the criteria for countries of concern. There seems to be inconsistency; some countries that are left off the list are just as bad as some of the countries that are on it.

Of course, one tactic for making a difference and influencing countries of concern is to refuse to allow them international status by holding major events. I personally regret that the Prime Minister chose to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo. In the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the Commonwealth, which was published in November 2012, the Committee took the view that the Prime Minister:

“should publicly state his unwillingness to attend CHOGM unless he receives convincing and independently verified evidence of substantial and sustainable improvements in human and political rights in Sri Lanka”.

No such evidence was forthcoming. In fact, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International took the view that the opposite was the case. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister decided to go to CHOGM and stated that he would “shine a light” on the situation in Sri Lanka. To be fair, he did so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South has said, the Prime Minister also called for an international inquiry into allegations of war crimes if no credible domestic investigations are carried out by March 2014.

The human rights situation in Sri Lanka will come before the UN Human Rights Council next at its 25th session, which is to be held from 3 to 28 March 2014. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will present a comprehensive report on the implementation of Human Rights Council resolution 22/1 on Sri Lanka of March 2013.

Will the Government follow up on the Prime Minister’s commitment by working with others to obtain agreement for the establishment of an international investigation into allegations of crimes under international law by all sides in Sri Lanka? Also, what action will the Government take to keep up the pressure on the Sri Lankan Government about ongoing human rights abuses?

As the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Committee, has said, of particular concern to the Committee are instances where allegations have been made of the torture of Sri Lankan Tamils who had been returned from the UK as failed asylum seekers. The Government previously maintained that they had no substantiated evidence that people returned by the UK immigration authorities to Sri Lanka had been maltreated. It is very important that we hear from the Minister whether the Government still stand by that opinion. It is not repeated in the FCO’s 2012 report and we did not get a straight answer from Baroness Warsi, who appeared before the Committee, when she was asked about it. Can we have a straight answer from the Minister who is here today when he responds to the debate?

I turn now to the prevention of sexual violence against women in conflict. The Committee rightly welcomed the initiative by the Foreign Secretary on this issue. Having worked on the issue of violence against women for more than 30 years—in fact, I still chair my local Women’s Aid group—I can honestly say that that initiative is one of the most positive steps that we have seen internationally for years.

Although we all know that violence against women persists in this country and that much more still needs to be done to prevent it, the prevalence of violence towards women in conflict situations throughout the globe—the nature and extent of the problem—has come increasingly to the fore, after being swept under the carpet for years. Rape as a weapon of war is one of the most heinous abuses of human rights of our time, and it is right that concentration is given to tackling the impunity to it that all too often exists. However, in doing so, it must be remembered that protection of victims and prevention of violence must also be taken into account.

The declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict, which has been signed by 137 countries to date, is a fantastic achievement. I agree with the response to our report by the FCO, which emphasises that in addition to encouraging other countries to contribute personnel to the teams of experts providing support, we should also build national capacities. As well as being practical, we know that the only way that there will be an end to violence against women is by changing attitudes to women and promoting equality.

As one of the co-chairs of the all-party group on Afghanistan, I am particularly concerned that we do not abandon the women of Afghanistan when international security assistance force troops are withdrawn from the country. The campaign in Afghanistan has been a long one, but I think that most people would agree that one of the successes of the last decade in the country has been the advancement of women’s rights. The women and girls of Afghanistan are now protected by law from rape within marriage; they can seek justice and support if they are sexually abused; and millions of girls now have access to education. However, these transformative changes are variable, fragile and at risk, as other colleagues have said. Also, as we say in our report, the act of passing legislation outlawing violence against women is not a “big step forward” if that legislation is not implemented.

The recent suggestion that public stoning for adultery should be reintroduced in Afghanistan may well be a sign of things to come. Although I recognise that President Karzai has publicly stated that public stoning will not be reintroduced, it beggars belief that we have come full circle and are still discussing the very practices that existed under the Taliban’s brutality. President Karzai will come under ever more pressure to abandon the women of Afghanistan. As western forces leave, he will need the support of conservative hard-liners to strengthen his increasingly vulnerable Government, and he may be tempted to offer abandonment of women’s rights as a concession to the Taliban as part of a deal to end the war.

I welcome the advocacy work that the UK Government have done with the Afghan authorities to ensure that women’s rights were included in the Tokyo mutual accountability framework—the accountability agreement between the Government of Afghanistan and the international community—and the financial support for civil society organisations that has been delivered through the Department for International Development.

It is especially welcome that there has been success in incorporating benchmarks on tackling violence against women in Afghanistan. However, the agreed benchmarks have yet to be reached. The Government of Afghanistan agreed to release a province-by-province report of investigated cases of violence against women and girls by 3 July 2013, but that report has not yet materialised. I hope that our Government will continue to press the authorities in Afghanistan, in the strongest possible terms, to meet their commitments, particularly on women’s rights.

With that, I will conclude, so that other Members can speak.

14:29

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will take five minutes, Mr Chope, to allow my colleagues to speak; I think that fits the arithmetic.

I will put on record the fact that I have raised with the Leader of the House the issue about the conduct of this debate, its timing and the opportunity for it, and I will continue to do so. It is wholly inadequate that we have 90 minutes to discuss the human rights of the whole world, on the back of a serious report by the Foreign Office, the Select Committee’s response to that report and the Government’s response to the Committee’s report. It is incumbent on all of us to put pressure on the relevant channels to ensure that we get a much longer debate on the Floor of the House or a three-hour debate here—something much better than this.

I want to deal with a couple of thematic issues. I attend the United Nations Human Rights Council as often as I can. I find it interesting. It is a great improvement on the Commission on Human Rights, in that there is a more transparent election process for membership of the council, and the universal periodic review process means that every country is put under a microscope at some point. That has to be a good thing. We are now coming to the end of the period for the first reviews in the UPR process. This is beginning to be the problem area. Where a UPR has come up with significant human rights concerns about a particular country—there are many of them—and a report comes back that is inadequate or has responded insufficiently to the Human Rights Council, the question is, how assertive is the Council prepared to be in future? There are no simple answers to this and it is a matter of involving people in debate and negotiation.

I should be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the direction of travel in this regard, because the Human Rights Council provides an opportunity to embarrass the human rights abusers and an opportunity for non-governmental organisations to make their views known, as well. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that, in any discussions about the future structure of the Human Rights Council, which Britain is now a member of, the Government will continue to press for one of the basic principles of the United Nations organisation and agencies, which is the opportunity for civil society to be able to speak at the Human Rights Council, and at other agencies. However, I am more concerned about the Human Rights Council, because it provides an expatriate non-governmental organisation, for example, or an NGO in a country with a fairly repressive regime, the one opportunity to embarrass their Government and raise issues of torture and human rights abuse. That is a precious right. I hope that the Government are prepared to support that.

I should also like the Minister to respond, if he could, on the question about Britain’s attitude to the European convention on human rights. I support the convention and guess that every hon. Member in this Chamber does. I support the European Court of Human Rights, in the sense that it exists and is an important process and helps set a benchmark. Many hon. Members have expressed concern, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my party’s Front-Bench spokesperson, about the treatment of Pussy Riot in Russia and the abuse of human rights there. The European Court of Human Rights process has been quite an important tool for human rights defenders in Russia and in other countries, including Ukraine, Hungary, Turkey and many other places, allowing them to raise such issues. If they think that the British Government’s sole policy is to continually denigrate and attack the European Court of Human Rights, and withdraw from the convention and that human rights process, that has two effects. First, it reduces our moral authority to say anything about anything and, secondly, it is a signal to many other countries that they, too, could follow the same path if life became embarrassing for them. The point of a convention, and of a transnational court, is that it has authority and has an effect on national policies.

There are many countries that I want to mention, but there is not time to do so. I just want to draw attention to the report’s contents concerning Iran, the points about Bahrain made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), and the interesting section on Saudi Arabia, to which attention has been drawn by hon. Members. I ask the Foreign Office and the Committee to persist with Saudi Arabia, particularly on migrant workers, and with regard to the lack of rights for migrant workers all over the Gulf region. The abuse of their human rights and their civil and political rights is a time bomb ticking away.

14:34

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee on its report and I appreciate much of the Government’s response. There are rarely quick fixes with regard to human rights. Much of the work is painstaking and involves like-minded countries trying to help bring international pressure to bear, to tackle human rights abuses. I wish to raise a few points in the short time that I have.

I fear that President Putin may be attempting to trivialise the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in Russia. I ask that all means are used—all channels of Government communication—to bring as much international pressure as possible to bear on Russia, to stop the repression and recognise full LGBT rights. Once the Sochi Olympic games are over, there is a danger that the issue will slip from view.

The UK is not in the Schengen area, so it is technically correct that it does not have influence on countries within that area. However, these are partner EU countries with which we have frequent interaction, so I find the Government’s answer in the report a little weak. We have clear expectations of other countries that want to form closer relationships with the EU and there could be much broader collaboration with EU colleagues, specifically on putting pressure on Russia in this matter. Perhaps the Minister will mention that.

On Burma, I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Committee Chair. Although we were all delighted at the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and with her visit to Parliament, that is certainly not the whole story. Renewed efforts are needed to tackle the Government in Burma on the continued repression, recent arrests of political activists, and issues relating to Rakhine state.

On sexual violence, I concur with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). I support the UK’s initiatives in challenging the use of sexual violence in conflict and in the difficult task of trying to change attitudes, to try to stop the collusion in and cover-up of such crimes and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The Government response makes exhortations about approaching other countries to provide expert teams for the painstaking and challenging work involved in tackling the use of sexual violence in conflict, and it mentions the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 28 November, saying likewise. What progress is being made on involving other countries and providing teams for this work? Although the initiative has been taken, in some ways, by this country, the area is so huge that we need as much help as we can possibly get.

14:36

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Committee and the Foreign Office on their reports. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn): this is my third time responding to this debate and every year we make the same point, which is that we really cannot do justice to the depth and scope of the report in 90 minutes. I hope that whatever mechanisms are available are put in place to ensure that there is a full debate on the Floor of the House, perhaps when the next report is published later this year.

I will not, because of the short time available, dwell on points made powerfully by hon. Friends and other hon. Members: the valid point about why Bahrain is listed as a country of concern; the praise for the preventing sexual violence initiative; concerns about women in Afghanistan; concerns about the arms export regime; and points made about restrictions on freedom of expression, which is a growing trend, with increased use of the internet and surveillance in that regard. Another valid point was the support for the principle of the universality of human rights, which we see echoed time and again in our debates on this issue and which is important for us to defend.

Given my limited time, I will focus on the countries singled out by the Committee. First, the UK was right to object in 2009 to Sri Lanka’s hosting CHOGM in 2011. As Baroness Warsi noted in her evidence, we also raised concerns then about the prospect of 2013. That was regarded as something that ought to be kept under review, if there was no improvement in the human rights situation.

It is disappointing that a more robust position was not taken in 2011. It is well known that the Opposition disagreed with the Government’s decision to send the highest possible delegation to CHOGM and we still do not understand why the Government felt it necessary to confirm who would attend six months before the event. That removed a powerful lever that they could have used on Sri Lanka in the intervening period, to get it to try to improve its human rights situation.

The FCO states that the Government

“used the run-up to the Summit to urge Sri Lanka to make progress on human rights concerns”,

about implementing the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and to allow unrestricted media and NGO access. Of course, the latter did not materialise, as the likes of Channel 4 news attest to.

It is interesting that the list of subjects raised before the summit does not include an independent and credible investigation into alleged violations of international law. The Prime Minister’s call at CHOGM for an investigation was too little, too late. Reports from Sri Lanka indicate that the President is no more inclined to meet the request for an inquiry than he was before CHOGM.

I urge the Foreign Office to start talks with its international counterparts now. Doing nothing until the March deadline will leave it too late to agree terms of reference for or the composition of an international inquiry at the Human Rights Council in March, thereby leaving the Sri Lankan people waiting still longer for justice and reconciliation. As the Foreign Office’s update this month disappointingly confirms, there has been no improvement in human rights since CHOGM and little commitment to addressing sexual violence. Sri Lanka has still not signed up to the preventing sexual violence initiative, although the Foreign Secretary has said that he is still hopeful that it will.

Given the concern about ongoing violations, I would appreciate an update on the safety of the human rights defenders whom the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met during their visits. I echo the point about the deportation of Sri Lankan nationals. In light of the severity of the torture allegations, it is disturbing that that issue was taken out of the FCO’s latest human rights report and that Baroness Warsi

“declined to give a direct answer”

to the Committee. I hope the Minister agrees that the Foreign Office cannot be silent on such allegations and that he will commit to working with the Home Office and organisations such as Freedom from Torture and to upholding article 3 of the UN convention against torture.

I welcome the Committee’s reminder that, although Burma has come a long way, there is still a long way to go. It is important that the lifting of EU sanctions should be used as leverage to press for more concerted action on human rights. The opportunity that provides for economic development and greater inward investment in Burma could in turn promote further democratic reforms. We welcome the EU’s continued involvement and the confirmation of an EU-Burma human rights dialogue.

We also welcome the decision of the President of Burma to release political prisoners but, as the Committee’s report highlights, there are worrying restrictions on the definition of “political prisoner” and troubling conditions were imposed on the release of prisoners in the past. We urge the Government to renew their efforts to secure the unconditional release of all those unjustly detained and to press for the necessary legal and judicial reforms to end arbitrary or politically motivated detention.

The ongoing tensions in Rakhine state, the discrimination suffered by the Rohingya and the conflict in Kachin state must remain on the international agenda, as is recognised in the latest country of concern update. The Rakhine investigation commission was not sufficient, the irregularities in Burma’s 1982 citizenship law are unresolved and the prejudice against the Rohingya community remains.

Finally, it is important that the UK should continue to press Burma on the role and powers of the military, particularly in light of the British Army’s involvement with the Burmese army. Constitutional reforms are also paramount to removing the obstacles to free, fair and inclusive elections next year, including the barrier to Aung San Suu Kyi’s standing for President.

Next, the Committee was right to focus on Russia. The “foreign agents” law was among the most disturbing indications of Russia’s attempts to stifle civil society and dissent and to shield the Government from scrutiny, along with other restrictions on the freedoms of assembly and expression, including a new blasphemy law and increased internet regulation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said. It is disappointing that Baroness Warsi did not fully engage with the Committee’s discussions on using the Schengen negotiations as leverage and that her letter to the Chair told the Committee “remarkably little”. I hope Ministers are considering all tools at their disposal.

On LGBT rights, there is little surprise that Russia was ranked the worst of 48 countries in ILGA-Europe’s index of legal and human rights for gay people. Conversely, the UK was ranked first, of which we should be proud—that also gives us a special status in pressing for gay rights on the international front.

The spotlight provided by the winter Olympics no doubt contributed to President Putin’s amnesty and the release of the Arctic 30, Nadya and Masha from Pussy Riot and Mikhail Khodorkovsky among others. It is important that that pressure and trend should be maintained after the spotlight of Sochi has dimmed. As Mr Khodorkovsky highlighted on his release, many more political prisoners remain in detention. We must also consider Human Rights Watch’s warning that Sochi means that Russian authorities have intensified the harassment and intimidation of campaigners; other Governments and the International Olympic Committee should take note. Given that Russia is due to host the 2018 football World cup, FIFA should also be taking a close interest.

Human rights dialogue with Russia provides a welcome opportunity to focus on the UK’s serious concerns but, as the Committee and Baroness Warsi noted, such dialogue does not necessarily achieve a great deal. I hope the FCO will give particular consideration to Human Rights Watch’s recommendation for a more collaborative and united approach from the EU. Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe provides another forum for the UK to raise our objections, especially given that Conservative and United Russia MPs are members of the same group, as does Russia’s return to membership of the Human Rights Council.

The broader issue of LGBT rights was not explicitly addressed in the FAC report. I have mentioned Russia, but we have to look further afield and particularly to the Commonwealth, three quarters of which still criminalises homosexuality. Concerns remain about the situations in Uganda and Cameroon, for example, and about the recent repressive legislation passed by Nigeria. We must be unequivocal that such criminalisation breaches the core values set out in the Commonwealth charter.

I join the Committee in welcoming the long-awaited publication of the Government’s business and human rights strategy. It remains a concern, however, that Ministers, when considering opportunities to promote British companies and investment abroad, are willing to overlook human rights. The Chancellor and the Mayor of London certainly gave the impression that they were reluctant to raise China’s human rights record when they visited last year. The Treasury declined to answer my question on whether the Chancellor had discussed human rights in China and the action plan on business and human rights with the Foreign Office before or after he went. Indeed, the answer to that question was delegated to a junior Treasury Minister who did not even go on the trip. I tabled named day questions to the Prime Minister in advance of his visit to China, but the answer I received several weeks later was, frankly, worthless. It did not tell me anything.

We value a strong bilateral relationship with China, but that cannot be confined just to trade and financial matters. We need political engagement across the spectrum, and it is disappointing that some Ministers seem to view discussions on human rights as a box-ticking exercise so that they can give parliamentary answers to shadow Ministers saying “nothing was off limits” without revealing any more information.

I press the Minister to ensure that implementing the business and human rights action plan is a priority for his colleagues, who need to be fully briefed, for instance, on the reason for the FCO’s designation of a particular state as a country of concern. I am not talking about just Foreign Office Ministers and Treasury Ministers but Ministers across the piste.

Companies doing business abroad should be fully briefed, too. I understand that 130 representatives went to China with the Prime Minister; it would have been a good idea to sit down with them before the trip to discuss the business and human rights action plan so that they had some understanding of the context.

The Committee warns:

“The FCO should not simply allow UK commercial interests to proceed without restraint”.

Indeed, following concerns raised in last year’s debate, the Committees on Arms Export Controls reported on the overlap between arms export licences and countries of concern, as was flagged up by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). I hope the Minister will update us on how the FCO is working on that with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Trade & Investment.

Finally, I welcome the UK’s return to the Human Rights Council, which provides another avenue for the Government to pursue the concerns we have discussed this afternoon. I hope that next year’s debate will allow us to focus on more successful examples of how the UK has exercised influence in the international sphere.

14:39

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

I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. The debate has been stimulating, well informed and productive. We have heard significant contributions, none more so than that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who in a detailed and articulate speech highlighted several of the key aspects of the FCO and FAC reports on the important subject of human rights. He was also right to put those in the context of some of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. The Foreign Office has listened carefully to the Committee’s constructive suggestions.

I will try to reply to the many issues about which hon. Members spoke, if they will bear with me. I apologise if I do not deal with everything that was raised, but I shall ensure that hon. Members’ important points are followed up in writing so that all who participated in the debate receive specific responses.

My right hon. Friend and others raised the important matter of deportation with assurances arrangements. I put on record that DWA is entirely consistent with our human rights obligations under international law and our policy of working to prevent torture overseas. The Government will not deport someone if there are substantive grounds for believing that they face a real risk of torture or other cruel, degrading treatment in their host country. DWA enables the UK to reduce the threat from terrorism while meeting domestic and international human rights obligations.

My right hon. Friend and others were right to mention Burma and the plight of the Rohingya. The Government are highly vocal in expressing concern about that plight. When President Thein Sein visited the United Kingdom in July last year, the situation in Rakhine state was at the heart of discussions between him and the Government. In December 2013, our ambassador in Burma visited Rakhine state and discussed human rights with authorities. We have been clear with the Burmese Government that people must be held accountable when serious crimes have been committed. We continue to lobby the Burmese Government that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights be allowed to open an office in the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who is the Minister of State at the FCO with responsibility for Burma, is engaged with human rights issues in that country.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South also highlighted the interruption of broadcasting. The UK Government strongly support an open internet that is accountable to all, providing not only access to information, but mechanisms for individuals to communicate. We strongly condemn deliberate interference, and the Government support work to encourage satellite providers to adopt technology that counters uplink jamming.

The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was absolutely right to refer to the importance of more analysis and evaluation. The content of the report that is made public is inevitably only the tip of the iceberg of the thorough and detailed analysis and assessment. It is underpinned by an FCO-wide analysis, which the Government have further strengthened through the network of expert human rights advisory groups on thematic issues, which are chaired by the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi.

The right hon. Lady was also right to highlight the importance of the evaluation of programmes and focusing on outcomes. We carry out extensive, in-country evaluations on all projects that we fund through the human rights and democracy programme to ensure that lessons are learned and applied in future programmes. We are about to launch the 2014 bidding round and have made several improvements to the process in the light of the evaluation of previous years. I emphasise the importance that all Ministers in the FCO attach to civil society, which was an important point of hers. I assure her that as my ministerial colleagues and I travel around the globe we insist on meeting civil society organisations and representatives of civil society not only to provide them with moral and sometimes financial support, but so that we can lobby host Governments in an informed manner.

The right hon. Lady and others were quite right to state the importance of the preventing sexual violence initiative. We are keen to engage with all hon. Members, not just those on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we desire expert and enthusiastic engagement. I urge the right hon. Lady to request official information about the summit in June, which will hopefully be a watershed moment that lifts the stigma from victims and pins it on the perpetrators, ending the atmosphere of impunity that has lasted for far too long. I assure her that the summit will be open to all who are interested, passionate and enthusiastic about this agenda.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) was right in his outline of the universality of human rights. I assure him that that will be our guiding light as we take up our seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council this year and the common factor—the golden thread—in all the initiatives that we take there. He has a particular knowledge of and interest in export licensing architecture and arrangements. In response to his point, the United Kingdom has one of the most stringent arms export control systems in the world. The export licence applications for everything, including in the Syria chemicals case that he raised, were properly assessed against the consolidated criteria, taking into account all relevant information. There was no evidence of a link to a chemical weapons programme and we have seen no subsequent information to suggest that the goods were diverted to such a programme.

My right hon. Friend also referred to the important issue of Bahrain. We continue to have concerns about human rights, but improvements made since 2011 should be noted, especially progress in judicial and security sector reform. I acknowledge and accept, however, that more needs to be done. We regularly raise our concerns both publicly and in private with the Bahraini Government.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned children’s rights. It is correct that the advisory group’s membership should remain limited for practical reasons that he will understand. That should not, however, be interpreted as underlying evidence that the protection and promotion of children’s rights do not form an integral part of the FCO’s wider human rights agenda, because they do. The FCO provides financial support to programmes in this area and works to ensure that international commitments on child rights are fully implemented. Our embassies and high commissioners have a responsibility to monitor and raise human rights issues including, importantly, children’s rights. Only this week, I held a meeting with representatives of the NGO community with a particular interest and expertise in children’s rights, including on preventing sexual violence against children and children serving in armed forces—whether state or non-state—to find out what more the Government, NGOs and wider civil society can do to try to make even faster progress in conjunction with multilateral institutions such as the UN.

I want quickly to address the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South and others about Sri Lanka. When launching the human rights report in Westminster earlier this week, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch said that the Prime Minister was right to go to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka and commended the Government’s determination to secure a tough resolution at the March UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, which included a mechanism for an international inquiry. I want to ensure that the House understands that if a credible domestic process has not properly begun by March 2014, we will use our position on the UN Human Rights Council to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and call for an international investigation. We will play an active role in building international support for that approach ahead of the March meeting. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) is right, however, that we face an uphill struggle to secure the passage of an appropriately robust resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, but I assure him that the FCO network is already hard at work with the resolution’s main sponsor, the United States, to mobilise opinion and the necessary majority, and that our campaign at the Human Rights Council will be led at ministerial level.

There are many other aspects that I could cover in response to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members, but I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). I want to assure those hon. Members who still harbour worries that the criteria for selecting countries of concern have become subjective. They have not; they remain objective. We continue to prioritise our efforts on the basis of our influence, not our interest, and that will remain the case.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made some good points but, if I may, I will respond to him in writing, given the time pressure that we are under. Some of what he said about the universal periodic review of rights is absolutely on the right lines. I will also respond to the hon. Members who made points about Russia and elsewhere.

14:59

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I am obliged to you, Mr Chope, for presiding over such an orderly debate. I am grateful to my colleagues, and we look forward to getting the Minister’s written responses to the points he has not covered.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Annette Brooke in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the International Development Committee, Violence Against Women and Girls, HC 107, and the Government Response, HC 624.]

15:00

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate my Committee’s report on violence against women and girls. I am delighted, with the change of Chair, to be under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.

I welcome my colleague, the Minister, to her place. I appreciate her role as a champion for women and her campaigning enthusiasm for that. I know she shares with me and the Committee the recognition that the status and role of women is absolutely central to development policy.

Violence is of widespread concern. When we published our report in June, I said:

“Violence against women expresses a deep-seated contempt that, regrettably, persists in some countries towards women and girls. It has been the ‘forgotten Millennium Development Goal’. The way in which any nation treats its women holds the key to its social and economic advancement. When you treat women as chattels - when you mutilate them, abuse them, force them to marry early, lock them out of school or stop them entering the workforce – you fail to function as a society.”

It is that fundamental. I will not rehearse the statistics, but in many quarters they are shocking.

When we published the report, we made a number of recommendations, and I ask for an update on the Government’s progress on them. We know where the Government have agreed with us.

14:39

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:10

On resuming—

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The interruption came at a natural break in my speech, because I was about to summarise some of the things the Committee welcomes that have happened since our report. I will then ask a few questions to clarify the progress being made, with a final couple of remarks about the situation in Afghanistan.

Commendably, the Foreign Secretary has maintained the cross-departmental prevention of sexual violence in conflict initiative, which has been widely welcomed and supported. The declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict has been signed by 113 countries. The UK hosted a high-level event on violence against women and girls in humanitarian crises in November and plans a summit on ending sexual violence in conflict in June this year.

The Department for International Development specifically has made progress with its £35 million fund to end female genital mutilation within a generation, to which the Minister is extremely committed, and she will want to speak about when she replies to the debate. DFID has also launched a new £3 million programme on access to justice for women and girls suffering violence in Afghanistan. We welcome these initiatives by the Government.

May I address some of the issues arising from our recommendations? First, we acknowledge the “Theory of Change” initiative underlying the Government and Department approach. May we have more specifics on how theory becomes practice? What in particular is being done in those countries where violence is especially prevalent, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Sudan and Somalia—which is not to say that there are not other countries where it is a serious problem? Will violence against women and girls be prioritised specifically in the programmes in those countries?

We had a specific concern with water and sanitation, which I accept that the Government acknowledged immediately, because there was no particular focus on violence against women and girls. Everyone knows that this is a prime example of where women and girls are especially vulnerable, either when they are going to collect water or are using sanitary facilities—they become vulnerable to attack. We welcome the Government agreeing that they should update the guidance. Will the Minister report on the progress made? They gave us 12 months’ notice, so we are halfway through that period.

Last week at the Liaison Committee, I also raised the subject of female genital mutilation with the Prime Minister. The International Development Committee was concerned that it was also an issue within the United Kingdom. It is not as prevalent here as it is in some countries, thank God, but many women living in this country have nevertheless suffered from it, and an estimated 20,000 girls are at risk.

We are aware, first, that female genital mutilation happens in this country, and yet there have been no prosecutions. Sometimes, too, girls are shipped out to have it done abroad and then brought back. Thirdly, the Select Committee was told, women who are British citizens and brought up here may go back to the country of their family’s origin where they are at risk, and yet the extent of our ability to protect them as British citizens is limited.

We are interested in finding out from the Minister how the DFID fund will deal with such issues and, in particular, whether there is any update on the possibility of prosecutions. There have been investigations, but no case has been brought to trial. As the Prime Minister said, getting people to testify and give evidence is the problem, but our view is that prosecutions would underline and demonstrate the strength of feeling.

DFID is a big player in the development sector and in engaging with multilateral agencies. The Committee hopes that when the Government engage with such agencies they will ensure that the issue of violence against women and girls is prioritised in their programmes. We are interested to know what steps the Government have taken to ensure that that is so. We are aware that the Secretary of State champions the issue in the World Bank, but the Government engage with other multilateral agencies where how the issue is being taken forward is not so apparent.

The high-level panel co-chaired by the Prime Minister made a welcome specific reference to target goals on gender equality, with one section on targeting violence against women and girls and another on child marriage, about which the Select Committee was particularly concerned. The recommendation is now going through a working party. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that the recommendation comes out at the other end and is not lost or diluted in any way?

Some people have said, for example, that we cannot have a target of zero violence, but once we start to quantify things the feeling is that we are in effect diluting the commitment to achieve measurable transformational change in the sector. I guess that the challenge to our Government is whether they will continue to insist on a target of eliminating violence against women internationally as a key priority, to ensure that the post-2015 development agenda specifically and explicitly highlights that as essential to delivering progress.

When we visited Ethiopia to support the programme we visited a project on child marriage supported by the Department, which the Minister has also visited. I do not often do commercials, but I think there is still something about it on our website. An interesting thing was that although the funding came from DFID and the leader of the project was UK-based everyone else on the programme was Ethiopian. They worked with the community, but they did not arrive with a pre-determined objective. They sat down with members of the community to discuss how child marriage affects communities, and led them to realise how damaging it is. The participants went from thinking that it was in the girls’ best interest to understanding that it is not. We heard some powerful testimony from a young girl who had been divorced at 13; another who said she had been married—and she meant married—at seven; a mother who had married off her elder daughter and then realised she was wrong, and became determined not to do that to her younger daughter; and a young priest who championed the case against child marriage. He pointed out that it increased the poverty of the village. That was powerful evidence of what can be done.

A slight concern arose with respect to the campaign on female genital mutilation. I know that the Minister has visited the project in Senegal, and has praised it. It was believed to be effective, but we were concerned that it might become the blueprint for what would happen in every country. I hope the Minister will agree—I am fairly certain that she will—that the work must be done according to each country’s social norms, so that people can come to their own conclusion that female genital mutilation is not the thing to do. It is after all not in just low-income countries that it happens. The biggest country where it is practised is Egypt, where about 90% of the women have been subjected to it. Indeed, they accept it. There is a huge amount of work to do. Another sad statistic was from Ethiopia, where 70% of women thought that it was perfectly all right to be beaten by their husbands—that they had a right to do it. There are huge cultural challenges involved in turning things around. I had a strong engagement with President Karzai on the issue during a previous visit, and he came out second best.

As to Afghanistan, we recommended in a separate report that DFID should sharpen up its commitment to its programmes specifically on women. We said that women’s status after the military departure—we will stay there for development purposes—will be the test of whether our intervention made a transformation. The statistics are extremely worrying. A UN report shows that although there has been a 28% increase in violence against women in Afghanistan there has been only a 2% increase in prosecutions. Laws have been changed to disadvantage women. For example, family members are not allowed to give evidence, which makes prosecution extremely difficult. President Karzai proposed to support the reintroduction of the stoning of women for adultery. That is a shocking indictment of a country that we tried to support, and for which our men and women died. The values we are concerned about are not cultural; they are absolute. We are entitled to speak out without compromise and say, “I don’t care what your religion or social norms are; if violence by one sex against another goes unchallenged, that will demean and diminish your society. It is just wrong and should not be tolerated.”

We are glad that the Minister champions the issue, and that the Secretary of State is leading a global campaign. There is a huge amount to be done, but I hope that the Minister can give us some up-to-date sense of how the Government are taking things forward.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I shall call the winding-up speeches at 4.20 pm. Six hon. Members want to speak, so I shall leave them to do the arithmetic, for now.

15:24

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

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce). There were many interesting facts from his experience and visits that I had not heard before, and I thank him. I congratulate the Select Committee on the report, and the Government on their efforts to tackle the problem.

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has described violence against women and girls as one of the most pervasive human rights violations in the world. It is both endemic and epidemic. It limits self-esteem, life chances, economic opportunity and development. Gender-based violence reinforces women’s inequality. As to the rate and frequency of violence against women, there is no one particular country or cultural tradition that it is confined to. This country suffers from it too. In Colombia for example, a woman is killed by a current or former partner every six days. In Somalia, 98% of women have undergone female genital mutilation. In Amhara, Ethiopia, 50% of girls are married by the time they are 15 years old.

Today I want to highlight two tragedies connected to the plight of women. The first is forced and child marriage, which is practiced in too many parts of the world, including the UK. Those affected may become vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation, early pregnancy, with a high risk of maternal mortality and morbidity, and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections and HIV. Teen pregnancy is the No. 1 cause of mortality for girls between the ages of 15 and 19 and nearly 10% of all adolescent girls in low and middle-income countries are mothers before they are 16.

Taking action against early and forced marriage will ensure that more young women and girls can continue their education, act with agency and make independent decisions about their futures. I commend the work that DFID is doing and the references to the subject in the Select Committee report, but the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, of which I am a member, has also produced a report. “A Childhood Lost”, about child marriages in the UK and abroad, was published a year ago. The report says that it is estimated that every year 5,000 to 8,000 people, including many young girls, are at risk of forced marriage in England. The chair of the all-party group has tabled amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently being debated in the other House, to safeguard 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK, who are currently able to marry with parental consent. I want to repeat the comments made in the Select Committee report, about FGM in the UK, with reference to this topic: while it is beyond my remit to comment on domestic policy in this debate, I believe

“that—as it stands—the UK’s credibility in calling to end the practice overseas is undermined by the failure to tackle the problem at home.”

I shall follow the debate in the other House with interest and I hope the Government will agree to safeguard young girls. That will send a strong message to practising communities at home and abroad.

The second issue to do with violence against women that I want to talk about is often ignored. It is one on which the UK has the potential to assert global leadership. That is the denial of abortion to girls and women who are raped in situations of armed conflict, in violation of their rights under international humanitarian law. The Select Committee report has a chapter entitled “Abortions for women raped in conflict”. Currently, the major providers of medical humanitarian services, including those funded by DFID, routinely exclude the option of abortion to girls and women raped in armed conflict. That forces the majority of rape victims—including young girls whose bodies are unprepared for motherhood —to endure unwanted, dangerous, and life-threatening pregnancies and childbirths. Denying rape victims access to safe abortion in humanitarian medical settings leads to further inhumane treatment of people already brutalised by war, because it compounds the physical injuries and psychological devastation of the rape itself.

Studies have shown that for girls and women who become pregnant from rape in armed conflict, maternal mortality is heightened owing to both the physical injuries from rape and the difficult conditions imposed by war. Girls impregnated by war rape are especially vulnerable, as

“when their bodies are not yet mature,”

pregnancy and childbearing

“can result in the rupture of the uterus and death of both the mother and the child.”

If both survive, there are also the emotional and practical difficulties of raising a child that frequently is unwanted, in a war zone—especially when the society is one that ostracizes victims of rape, and children conceived in rape.

Sky News has just reported the story of a 16-year-old girl who was impregnated by rape in the ongoing conflict in the Central African Republic, and forced to bear a child in dangerous circumstances. After being raped she was kicked out of her home and left alone to struggle with her pregnancy in the midst of war. This month she gave birth in a local hospital, which was facing a shortage of drugs to treat any complications she might develop. As the Sky News correspondent who witnessed the delivery reported:

“It was a brutal birth to a baby boy she never wanted, into a dangerously chaotic and unstable country.”

Her story is one of the countless and uncounted stories of girls and women forced by rape, as well as humanitarian aid policies, to endure dangerous and unwanted pregnancies in war zones.

As was referred to in the International Development Committee report, girls and women raped in situations of armed conflict are considered “the wounded and sick” under the Geneva conventions, with inalienable rights to comprehensive, non-discriminatory medical care. To further protect those rights, the Geneva conventions require that doctors treating war victims make medical decisions based solely on the best interests of the patient, and mandate that they are immune from prosecution under domestic laws, including laws prohibiting abortion. Accordingly, women and girls who are impregnated by rape in armed conflict have an absolute right to any and all medical treatments, including abortion, that could restore them to the highest level of physical and mental health.

Let me give some examples. Approximately 500,000 women suffered violence during the genocide in Rwanda. Many more were victimised during the aftermath of the 2010 flooding in Pakistan. Lack of access to reproductive health care in disaster and conflict zones is harming women and girls around the world. As is often the case, the world’s poorest are suffering the most. Every year 47,000 women die from unsafe abortions, and millions more suffer serious life-threatening injuries.

Let us be clear on unsafe abortions. Denying a woman access to abortion in situations of rape, of incest and of endangerment of the mother’s life is an act that coerces a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, infringing her dignity and autonomy by severely restricting decision making in respect of her sexual and reproductive health. That pattern of coercive control over women’s rights to health and autonomy can result in physical and psychological harm, and can amount to a state-sanctioned pattern of gender-based violence.

As such, I wish to highlight the concern that overall investment and commitments to eradicate unsafe abortion are being diluted and diverted in light of misinterpretation of guidelines from the United States Agency for International Development, with disastrous and often fatal consequences for women and children. DFID has recently said:

“On access to abortion services, UK policy is clear: the UK development budget can be used, without exception, to provide safe abortion care where necessary, and to the extent allowed by national laws.”

That clarity is to be commended. Will the Government now give guarantees that they will tackle the matter head on and ask the US to lift the practice of banning funding for abortion services?

I wish to draw attention to the commendable work of many non-governmental organisations—including the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International—that are working with displaced populations in conflict areas to provide training and support on the provision of abortion services. That includes work to improve access to information and to sexual and reproductive health services for communities in humanitarian settings, initially throughout the Asia-Pacific region, where 3,900 professionals have been trained in 18 countries and 76 in-house trainings have been rolled out. In addition to training professionals working in crisis and post-crisis situations, that work also co-ordinates key health and relief agencies, providing regional and national level advocacy to politicians and policy makers, and provides technical assistance and dissemination of information to professionals in humanitarian settings. In light of its success, regional training is also being rolled out in Africa and the middle east and north African region, in partnership with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the UK Family Planning Association.

The United Nations Security Council and Secretary-General agree that victims of rape in armed conflict must be provided with the option of abortion. On October 18 2013, the Security Council unanimously passed resolution 2122, a groundbreaking resolution supporting abortion services for girls and women impregnated by war rape. Although the Security Council does not use the term abortion in resolution 2122, its language makes clear that member states and the UN must ensure that all options are given to women impregnated by war rape, stating that it notes

“the need for access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, including regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination”.

That provision directly responds to the Secretary-General’s recommendation to the Security Council in September 2013 that girls and women raped in armed conflict must be ensured access to

“services for safe termination of pregnancies resulting from rape, without discrimination and in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law.”

That language reaffirms that medical care for girls and women raped in war is governed by the Geneva conventions rather than national or local abortion laws.

I will finish there, so that other Members have the chance to join in the debate.

15:35

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne).

This important debate about violence against women and girls follows the publication of the International Development Committee’s report, the contents of which the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), has outlined. Violence against women and girls is a wide-reaching issue. Globally, one in three women will experience one type of gender-based violence or another in their lifetime. Although such violence is first and foremost an abuse of basic human rights, and, in some cases, even child abuse, it has other more wide-ranging societal implications, which the Department for International Development should address when apportioning aid.

One of the most shocking forms of violence committed against women worldwide, already mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee, is undoubtedly female genital mutilation. Globally, up to 140 million girls have been subjected to the practice. The issue is all the more concerning when we consider that FGM is a culturally institutionalised practice and in some countries is endemic; the percentage of girls having undergone the procedure in Somalia and Kurdistan stands at 98% and 70% respectively. It is practised in about 28 countries worldwide.

I am pleased that DFID has recognised the need to step into the breach, as international donor support has been low, and that it has dedicated £35 million, along with programming, to

“end female genital mutilation in one generation.”

I am also encouraged by how DFID aims to do that. The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the project we saw in Ethiopia—a powerful project about village empowerment to educate people against such practices. We saw that in action. Only by teaching communities about female genital mutilation and the complications it causes can they be made aware of the true brutality of the practice. I believe that in patriarchal societies such as those we have mentioned, such education should be focused on men and boys, especially village elders and religious leaders, as well as women and girls.

Alarmingly, however, FGM is not confined to far-away countries. Figures in a recent report showed that, as those who have been working for up to 30 years to stop the practice in Britain know, the incidence of FGM here has increased considerably over recent years. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that last year 70 women sought treatment for injuries sustained during the procedure and illnesses associated with the practice. Some cases even led to death.

Of course, those figures are not entirely representative of the true extent of the problem, as many women fear the consequences of telling the authorities. That makes it difficult for the police and prosecutors to identify cases of FGM, and to date there has never been a prosecution under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 here in Britain. That situation presents law enforcement authorities with something of a problem, and I would welcome mandatory reporting by doctors, nurses and other health professionals, and teachers who feel that their pupils are in danger of either having the cutting done here or of being taken back to their home community to have it done.

It is important that public bodies are taught that FGM is not a culturally sensitive issue but a crime that needs to be reported to protect the girls whom it affects. It is child abuse, and until there has been a prosecution the practice will continue unabated. It is against British law and punishable in the courts. Why are the safeguarding boards not shouting from the roof tops about the issue? All those entrusted with protecting children, young people and women need to start taking a much more robust approach.

I am sorry to say that France’s record is much better than ours. It has had around 100 prosecutions to date and is setting a good example. We should look at what it has done and how, and then do the same. It is shocking that some French girls are sent here to be mutilated in this country. Why do we not change the law to prosecute the parents of girls who have been cut? The children are supposed to be under their protection, but the parents allow that to happen. They have been complicit, even when they have not done the cutting themselves. When a few parents have been prosecuted, more will think twice about the practice.

I pay tribute to the work of the previous chairman of the all-party group on genital mutilation, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is now a Health Minister and is following up every avenue she can. I have taken her place, and will be working with communities here in the UK to make progress on this issue.

Forced marriage, which was not mentioned in this report, is another area where fear of offending cultural sensibilities is seriously affecting the rights of young women. For some time now, I have been involved with a charity, Karma Nirvana in Derby, which runs a helpline service for men and women affected by the practice. It is run by Jasvinder Sanghera, who was herself a victim of forced marriage. Every year, Karma Nirvana writes to schools throughout the country to circulate information and literature promoting awareness of the issue, but to date only nine schools have responded to the initiative.

When Karma Nirvana launched its new poster campaign earlier this year, only two schools signed up. Some head teachers have torn them down from notice boards for fear of upsetting cultural sensibilities. Again, this is child abuse, and despite the disappointing figures, it is essential that schools take some responsibility in combating forced marriages because they know their pupils and should highlight possible victims. Some 35% of victims are school-age children.

I am aware that the offence of forcing someone into marriage against their will is set to enter the statute book later this year, but schools, other public agencies and the media are turning a blind eye to the problem. When a teacher and a white female pupil ran away to France last year, the media reported it every day for more than a week until they were found. There may be hundreds of Asian girls going missing every year, but that is not reported in the news. Those girls are British but not white. Is that the difference? If so, could we not blame the media for racial discrimination?

Shafilea Ahmed was murdered by her parents in 2003 after refusing to enter into an arranged marriage. She told five separate organisations that she was at risk, but all failed to act on her warnings. The police even attempted to provide mediation between her and her parents, who later took her life. It is clear that cultural sensitivity overrode the need to protect that young girl. Could that be called honour-based violence? Where is the honour in murdering your own child?

Jasvinder Sanghera’s sister poured petrol over herself and set herself alight, burning herself to death after being forced to marry a man she did not want to be with. There are countless similar stories, but time prevents me from going through them.

It is essential that the Committee should lend its support nationally and internationally to stamping out this social evil. A recent report by Demos praised the Department for International Development for its work in providing assistance and aid for victims of forced marriage, but there is so much more to be done. Greater co-ordination between in-country DFID representatives and Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular staff is paramount in promoting the regional presence of the forced marriage unit, allowing girls who are forcibly taken abroad to marry to be brought back safely to the UK. Perhaps there should be similar units in countries that practise FGM so that they can act when they suspect that a child has been taken to a country for the specific reason of cutting.

It is important to raise the issue of future funding for Karma Nirvana. It has taken 30,000 calls since 2008, but it is unsure whether its funding stream from the Ministry of Justice will be in place after September. It is the only charity providing hotline support for those experiencing honour-based abuse and forced marriage. It is obvious that forced marriage is not a small problem, and when the law against it comes into force it follows logically that the demand for support services will increase. I urge the Minister to make representations to the Minister with the relevant responsibility to ensure continued funding.

The Committee’s report makes important recommendations for ending barbaric practices such as FGM. I am pleased that it suggests doing that through education. I understand that DFID is undertaking initiatives to eradicate forced marriage, but it is important for the Committee to have further discussions on the issue to evaluate how we can further encourage efforts at home and abroad.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

Order. We are down to about nine minutes per speech.

15:45

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

It is a pleasure, Mrs Brooke, to serve under your chairmanship and to follow such an informative speech from the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). I congratulate the Select Committee on International Development on its report on violence against women and girls and the Government on their continued efforts to tackle the problem internationally, as well as nationally.

I served on the International Development Committee a few years ago when we went to Nigeria, Bangladesh and other places. We witnessed violence against women, child abuse, forced marriage, under-age marriage and poor education, especially for girls, with lack of water and sanitation in girls’ schools, which was provided in other schools. We witnessed that discrimination. I miss the work of the Committee, and I will certainly try to return to it so that I can contribute to its work.

After today’s news that a 20-year-old woman was tied to a tree and gang-raped in India, allegedly on the orders of village elders, the issue of violence against women and girls is particularly poignant; the utmost importance of addressing this critical issue has been highlighted again. As a member of the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, I want to draw attention to the importance of family planning and sexual and reproductive health and rights when tackling violence against women and girls.

Violence against women has been called the most pervasive yet least recognised human rights abuse in the world. As many as one in three women in the world have suffered some form of abuse, most often by someone she knows, including her husband or another male family member. Any such abuse can leave deep psychological scars and damage the health of women and girls, especially their reproductive and sexual health, and sometime results in death or leaves them permanently disabled, ruining their lives.

The effects of violence on a woman’s reproductive health can be profound, from unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions to complications from frequent, high-risk pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. Gender-based violence is sustained by a culture of silence and a denial of the seriousness of the health consequences of abuse. In addition to individual harm, those consequences exact a social toll and place a heavy burden on health services. Gender-based violence is sustained by silence, so women’s voices must be heard and every effort must be made to enable women to speak out against it, and to get help when they are victims of it.

The Government should be congratulated on hosting the family planning summit in July 2012. Global leaders united and pledged $2.6 billion to provide 120 million women in the world’s poorest countries with access to contraception by 2020, and the UK announced £500 million in aid.

Currently, more than 200 million women and girls in developing countries do not have access to modern methods of contraception. The inability to choose and access family planning will cost many of those women their lives. I urge the Government to ensure that part of their pledge is dedicated to making emergency contraception available to victims of sexual violence to alleviate some of the suffering and SRHR problems it causes.

Access to modern contraceptives can help prevent an estimated 600,000 neonatal deaths. In 2012, an estimated 291,000 women and girls in low and middle-income countries died from pregnancy-related causes; 104,000 of those pregnancies were unintended. Investing in SRHR is cost-effective. Money spent on modern contraception helps save more in maternal and newborn health care and is a strong tool for moving towards gender equality and female empowerment. It helps tackle violence against women and girls and its devastating effects.

As well as ensuring access to family planning and SRHR, I urge the Government to strengthen advocacy on gender-based violence in all our country programmes in conjunction with other United Nations partners and non-governmental organisations. We must integrate messages on the prevention of gender-based violence into information, education and communication projects and conduct more research on gender-based violence.

Lastly and most importantly, I appeal to the Government to call for the new millennium development goals framework to include a target on universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights and a stand-alone goal on gender equality and women’s empowerment. The matters that we are discussing are of great urgency. We have a moral duty to defend the vulnerable and to ensure that human rights for all are protected.

15:52

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I pay tribute to those who spoke before me, and I will comment particularly on the powerful message from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) about the need to stand up against things happening in this country that must be exposed and not hidden away—female genital mutilation, and early and forced marriage.

I very much—perhaps “enjoyed” is the wrong word—appreciated being part of the inquiry by the International Development Committee. I confess that I had not given enough thought to this issue over the years, and the process opened my eyes to the extent of violence against women and girls, not only in the developing world but, as we have heard, in the developed world. I am pleased that the Government have made the issue a focus of their work, led by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, and by Ministers in the Department for International Development, including the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien), and the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who has rightly championed the issue and made it a focus of her work.

The issue was particularly brought home to me by three students who approached me from King Edward VI school in Stafford, in my constituency. Those three girls—Maya Lucey, Amy Mace and Chloe Taylor—wrote to me saying that they would like to speak with me about it. I had not spoken to them about it before, but what they had heard in the press and elsewhere had made them concerned about female genital mutilation in the UK. I had the pleasure of meeting and speaking to them last Friday, or rather of listening to what they had to say. I was profoundly impressed not only by the extent of their knowledge, but by their commitment to stopping FGM in this country. I pledged that I would do what I could to raise the matter in this debate and to supporting all the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire and others continue to do in Parliament. I pay tribute to the girls’ teacher, Mrs Jo Bentham, who ensured that they were supported in talking about an issue that is particularly difficult for some people of their age to raise.

Members have already discussed the statistics on FGM prevalence rates. They are as high as 98% in Somalia and 94% in Sierra Leone; I will mention Sierra Leone a bit later. An estimated 3.3 million girls a year globally are still at risk from the practice. A study conducted in 2007 by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the City university midwifery department, using modelled estimates, concluded that 66,000 women resident in England and Wales had undergone FGM, and that 23,000 girls under the age of 15 were at risk of it. This matter is of great importance not just in countries in the remit of the Department for International Development, but right here on our doorstep. I welcome the work being done by DFID. We understand that, in March 2013, it dedicated £35 million to ending FGM in one generation. Part of that money will fund social change, communications and research. The goal is ambitious and worthy, and I congratulate DFID on its commitment.

In the time remaining to me, I will concentrate on the vital matter of changing social norms. I well remember living in Tanzania and having a good friend from an area where FGM was the norm—everybody allowed their young daughters to be subjected to it. He was determined that that should not be the case for his daughters, and instead of taking a negative or critical approach, he stood up and said, “We’re not going to allow our daughters to go through this. We are setting an example.” That comes back to a point made by previous speakers: it is vital that we engage communities, not just lecture them. We must work with women’s groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire said, and with men and boys, to say that FGM is completely unacceptable.

I want briefly to address the question of early marriage, and one problem that it brings and to which FGM contributes: fistulas. When I was in Sierra Leone at the end of last year, I visited the Aberdeen Women’s Centre in Freetown, which has been equipped through generous donations from Scotland, in particular, and from Ann Gloag. We saw women there, some of them very young, whose lives were being transformed by the repair of their fistulas, which had developed largely as a result of their being married and giving birth at an early age. It made an enormous difference to them. Without it, they would have been almost outcast and ashamed to be in society.

We have heard about the critical matter of water and sanitation. While I was living in Tanzania and my wife was running a public health programme there, one key thing that she wanted was for shallow wells to be drilled in every village to enable women and girls to get water locally, rather than having to travel 5 km, 6 km or 7 km for it. Such travelling not only meant that they could not receive education, but put them and their mothers at risk of violence. The project made a big difference, especially as the community was involved in not only raising the money for the wells and pumps in the first place, but maintaining them. One could see that when a community was committed to the well-being of the girls and women in their midst, it was quick to raise the necessary money.

I conclude by again commending the Government’s work in this area. We must ensure that it continues and is not a theme for only a year. It has to be a theme for this Government and many Governments—and for many generations. That is so obvious, yet it sometimes seems to escape our notice.

16:00

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Like most hon. Members, I want to focus on one aspect of violence against women and girls: female genital mutilation. I believe that our concern reflects that of the public, and that was brought home to me when I was asked to do several media interviews following the publication of our Committee’s report, because every one of them focused on concern about FGM in this country. I believe that once people become aware of the issue, they want resources allocated to address it. I welcome the prioritisation that DFID is giving FGM by providing £35 million towards the ambitious aspiration of ending it in a generation. I want to touch on the practice here and abroad, and to update Members on one or two statistics that have been published since the Committee published its report. I will finish by asking the Minister some questions.

As we have heard, a terrifying number of girls are affected—140 million. According to UNICEF, 98% of women and girls in Somalia are affected. In Guinea, 96% are affected; in Egypt, 91%; in Eritrea, 89%; in Sierra Leone, 88%; in Ethiopia, 74%; in Sudan, 88%; in Gambia, 76%; and in Burkina Faso, 76%. The practice also occurs in many countries outside Africa, so it is a truly global problem. In recent decades, the practice has grown significantly among the migrant communities of north America, Scandinavia, Europe and the UK.

Our Committee was shocked to receive statistics for this country from the Department of Health. A 2007 report indicated that about 66,000 women and girls in the UK had undergone FGM and that more than 20,000 girls aged under 15 were at risk. However, those figures may well have been a gross underestimate. I had the privilege of sponsoring the launch in the House this week of a report from the New Culture Forum. That report extrapolated figures from the 2011 census data, whereas the figures that I cited were from the 2001 census. The number of women and girls living with FGM from migrant communities is highly likely to have increased over those years. It is now estimated that the figures could be about three times those that the Committee received, meaning that about 170,000 could have undergone FGM, and about 65,000 girls aged 13 and under could be at risk of mutilation.

The New Culture Forum report also includes thought-provoking comments, one of which is the frequently made statement that it is now almost 30 years since legislation was enacted to outlaw the practice—the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985—yet

“not a single successful prosecution has been brought against FGM practitioners.”

It is interesting to note that we are behind Kenya in that respect, as it has brought at least three successful prosecutions. As has been mentioned, France has brought many more. However, it is not only 30 years since legislation prohibiting the practice was enacted, because legislation relevant to it actually goes back as far as 1861, as what is happening is grievous bodily harm. It is child sexual abuse of the worst possible nature, so we really must do all that we can to break down what the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has called a “wall of silence” that is inhibiting prosecutions in this country.

We need to ensure that professionals in the field, including criminal prosecutors and health care practitioners, receive adequate training, and that there is engagement and education within FGM-practising communities. As many Members have said, FGM is a cultural practice that has to be changed.

There is a difficultly with compiling evidence. Only this week, we heard that hospitals are failing to report FGM as they should, because

“161 hospitals that responded to a Freedom of Information request, 83 said that they did not formally record FGM cases.”

That has to change. This week we heard that the chief inspector of constabulary, Tom Winsor, was reported as saying:

“Police are never called by certain minority communities because they administer their own justice even in cases as serious as…sexual assaults on children.”

That also has to change.

The most important factor in inhibiting action is excessive cultural sensitivity, which is simply a reluctance to combat the practice of FGM for fear of appearing reactionary or prejudiced. The profound irony is that that perspective generates a discrimination of its own as the victims remain unprotected precisely because of their race. It is interesting that the Council of Europe has clearly dismissed arguments of political correctness, stating:

“It is a matter of urgency to make a distinction between the need to tolerate and protect minority cultures and turning a blind eye to customs that amount to torture and inhuman or barbaric treatment”

of this type.

As a French lawyer said at the event that I was privileged to sponsor this week, “You cannot use the excuse, ‘It’s their culture.’ Torture is not culture.”

In most cases, parents and/or grandparents—the very people a child would expect to provide them with protection—are present at the act, and it is often conducted at their instigation. It is heart-rending to hear some of the recordings of a child crying out, “Mummy, Mummy” during the act. This is not only about all the physical damage that we have heard of today, as the psychological and mental damage that the children—they are often aged between six and 12—suffer cannot be calculated.

I turn to several questions to which I would like the Minister to respond. First, although our Committee welcomes DFID’s announcement of £35 million for a programme to end FGM in a generation, if that aspiration is to be met, the funding needs to be invested sensitively and carefully. I remind the Minister of the Committee’s recommendation of adopting a “phased and flexible” approach to ensure that evidence-based programming is conducted. Will she update us on progress with regard to the use of that £35 million to tackle FGM worldwide?

Secondly, will the Minister confirm reports of how the Metropolitan police are approaching the issue? I understand that they have reopened some FGM cases. How confident is the Minister that that will lead to a prosecution in this country? It is clear that we need to put aside political correctness and adopt a far more robust, cross-agency approach in which the police proactively track girls at risk. Our Committee has recommended the publication of an up-to-date, binding document requiring all health service providers, the Department of Health, the Department for Education, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, the Government Equalities Office, the police, the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service to play their part. Will she look again at that? Is it not the case that unless we have joined-up working, we will not be able to tackle FGM in this country? Even more so, unless we have international joined-up working, and learn from good practice and success in other countries, we will not achieve our global aspiration. This massive challenge requires joint working by as many agencies as possible.

The Committee noted that the Government disagreed with our report’s recommendation that a cross-Whitehall strategy for tackling FGM should be published, as they said that they already had an action plan in place. Why, as the Prime Minister himself admitted earlier this month, do we therefore still lack results on stamping out this practice in the UK? During our inquiry, we discovered that there was no consistent data collection on FGM in the NHS. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will start collecting information routinely about at-risk babies and girls, and that that information will be used to take action?

We welcome the action already taken by DFID and its financial commitment. However, we highlight in particular that although robust action must be taken, it needs to be culturally applicable and there has to be joint working, both within and outside the UK.

16:10

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I shall keep a close eye on the clock.

I speak as a delegate of the Council of Europe, which has 47 member countries across geographical Europe—it is much larger than the European Union. Its purpose is to uphold three things: democracy, the rule of law and human rights. All those categories come within the subject of this debate, but none more so than human rights. We are going on our first quarterly visit next week, but on our last visit we happened to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where we were reminded that it was set up to prevent gross abuses of human rights, rather than to address some of the trivial things that it is asked to decide on these days. We were interested to find that 97% of the applications to it from the United Kingdom are rejected on the grounds that they are inadmissible or inappropriate. The sort of gross abuses that took place during the second world war, for example, gave rise to the body’s creation.

I wish to speak briefly about the horror of the use of rape as a weapon of war. The results of that are not just the psychological, emotional and physical damage that sufferers live with for the rest of their lives, but the cultural rejection that comes with it. Victims often have no means of earning a living and are condemned to a life of extreme poverty and isolation.

However, I want to focus mainly on the subject that almost every other speaker has spoken about: female genital mutilation. That most grotesque, barbaric practice amounts to torture. It is illegal in this country and is a gross breach of human rights. It was probably during my first Parliament that I served on the Committee that considered the Bill that made it illegal to remove girls from this country and take them abroad to undergo this practice. Another member of that Committee was the then Liberal Democrat Member, Dr Jenny Tonge. We all agreed before our proceedings started—hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were of the same mind—that there was no need to enter into any graphic descriptions, but Jenny Tonge, as a doctor, did embark on the most graphic descriptions of what happens to victims. I will not name the male colleague who was with me, but he was so affected by that that he went very pale and almost passed out in his chair.

The Bill’s purpose was to stop the practice happening, but of course it has not, given the extreme difficulty of enforcement and of finding anyone who is willing to provide evidence. There is often collusion among older women in the cultural groups that still uphold this practice, which is often carried out in unsterile conditions. The victims suffer infection, chronic health problems for the rest of their lives, and real trauma during marriage and childbirth.

We must try to deal with this practice in many ways, including through diplomacy between countries and Governments, and do whatever we can to bring it to an end. It involves the most appalling subjugation of women. An estimated 140 million women in Africa and the middle east, and 66,000 women living in this country, have suffered FGM. A further 20,000 girls in this country are estimated to be at risk. However, it is extremely difficult to obtain evidence about what happens, and then it is only after the event, although even that has a purpose. If we could just secure some convictions, it would help to deter further instances of this practice, break the cultural habit and make people realise that FGM is illegal in this country.

One hundred years ago, women in this country rose up to demand their human rights. Women in other countries need to do that, and we need to do whatever we can to find strong women in the countries in which the practice prevails and to help them to speak out and rise up there, because that will be the most effective way of getting this dreadful practice stopped.

16:15

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

I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. There have been many well informed speeches today. I welcome the broad approach of the Government in making this a strategic issue in the work of the Department for International Development, but it is also right to raise some of the concerns flagged up in the Select Committee report.

Violence against women is a violation that cannot be justified by any political, religious or cultural claim. Around the world, violence against women and girls takes many grotesque forms, a lot of which have been raised in this debate. One in three women will face violence in their lifetimes: that is 1 billion women and girls—1 billion stories of violence against women. However, that is not a stagnant statistic; there are a number of situations happening now, globally, that should spur our focus on this issue.

There is the vulnerable situation faced by women and girls in the Philippines in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan. Early reports indicated that the collapse in law and order, the widespread displacement of people and the distress, disruption and sheer desperation following a disaster of that magnitude had put more than 65,000 women and girls at risk of sexual abuse and trafficking. There were the 4,000 incidents of violence against women documented in just six months by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. Those incidents included maiming and amputation of body parts, acid attacks, kickings, beating with a wire, pulling out of hair and burning, rape, prostitution and forced abortion. That highlights the precarious situation of women on the eve of our withdrawal from Afghanistan. There is the worsening situation undoubtedly faced by women and girls in the Central African Republic, in Syria and in South Sudan as violence in those fragile states escalates.

Women and girls who experience violence suffer from a range of physical and psychological health problems. It diminishes their ability and confidence to participate in normal human activities and public life and cripples their contribution to development and peace. In doing so, violence against women impoverishes not only women, but their families, their communities and, ultimately, entire nation states.

However, at our worst, we have allowed fears of cultural insensitivity to overpower and suppress our moral obligation to stand up for women worldwide. We have allowed abusers to go unpunished for their crimes. We have allowed violence against women not to get the reckoning and retribution that it deserves and let it be removed, at times, from the international agenda. Perhaps most shockingly, we allowed it to be negotiated out of the millennium development goals. At this crucial time, we cannot and must not allow that to happen again.

The Government’s determination to tackle the collusive silence that surrounds debate on this issue is laudable, although I am concerned that on some levels that approach is flawed. The International Development Committee’s second report of this Session highlighted important ways in which we can strengthen our approach to tackling violence against women and girls.

Specifically, the report spoke of the danger of DFID’s narrow focus on reactive support services above proactive, transformative projects that deal with the underlying causes of violence. The report found that of 117 interventions listed by DFID, just 16 were aimed at changing social norms. Instead, the majority focus on building institutional capacity to respond to acts of violence—supporting survivors to access justice or the protective care and support services that they need.

The report recommended a fundamental shift in emphasis. Gender activists have supported that call, saying that they have often found it difficult, particularly at country level, to see how DFID is challenging social norms and that evidence of DFID’s much lauded and commendable “Theory of Change” being mainstreamed into key DFID programmes can sometimes be scant. In their response to the report, the Government agreed. In answer to the concerns raised, they highlighted

“ongoing efforts to deliver our commitment to help ten million women and girls access security and justice services by 2015.”

At the end of last year, DFID published another strategy entitled “Addressing Violence against Women and Girls through security and justice programming”. I acknowledge freely that it is not an either/or, but I am concerned that that invades the principal recommendation that stems from the report. Will the Minister respond to that?

Although investment in security and justice systems is a crucial building block for violence prevention, establishing accountability and redress, evidence shows that better-functioning institutions will have limited impact on the reduction of violence against women and girls unless efforts are also made to tackle the root causes of violence: women’s lack of power and discriminatory social norms.

The strategy states that one of its key objectives is to protect women and girls from all forms of violence and the threat of violence, but only seven of the 44 case studies listed across the two guidance notes make any attempt to prevent violence against women and girls; the other 37 case studies refer solely to the provision of services after violence has been committed. Moreover, it appears that we often fail to follow our own advice. The guidance asserts in bold:

“Any training or awareness raising work”—

of security and justice actors, including soldiers, occupying forces, peacekeeping forces or demobilised troops—

“must focus on improving knowledge and changing attitudes and changing behaviours.”

That is at odds with the tone used by the Prime Minister when he gave evidence to the Liaison Committee last week:

“We cannot ask our soldiers, sailors and airmen to do too many different things. They need clear instructions and a clear goal, but, yes, that can be part of it.”

The “that” is the role of UK armed forces in training overseas forces about violence against women. The guidance stresses the importance of informal provision and the role of women’s rights organisations and states that

“supporting women’s organisations and other CSOs to lobby for policy reforms and support implementation is a key priority”.

However, Womenkind Worldwide highlighted the concern that despite their enormous added value, many women’s rights organisations have not received the resources that they need to scale up their delivery and influence. They suffer from a shortage of funding that commits beyond an annual cycle. Womenkind Worldwide undertook analysis that showed that UK aid funding amounted to $16.41 million in 2011, compared with, for example, $118.6 million in the Netherlands and more in other countries. Very few southern-based women’s rights organisations are direct recipients of DFID centralised funds, and only one women’s rights organisation, Gender Links, was found to be funded under the programme partnership arrangement fund. No direct grants were found to be offering support under the civil society challenge fund.

I appreciate that we are dealing with a difficult area in which there are many competing needs, but surely there must be a shift towards tackling views among men and boys as well as protecting women and girls from violence. That is an issue not only further afield but in this country, so we should look at our views and those of others. Analysis by Amnesty International highlighted the fact that only three of 27 DFID country programmes have identified violence against women and girls as a strategic priority.

In the Government’s response to the International Development Committee’s report, much is made of the newly announced research and innovation fund, which is mentioned 12 times in the 24 pages. Although more research is welcome, I remain concerned that the research component is unlikely to be activated until later this year, and that only £25 million has been allocated, with no commitment on length, amount or protection of future funding. I am concerned that that fund may delay our response to this crucial issue. It is important that research goes hand in hand with active country programmes that challenge the perceptions of men and boys about violence against women and girls. The fund must not be treated as an omnipotent panacea. I welcome the Government’s response on those issues.

The International Development Committee’s report raises crucial questions and highlights some important ways in which we can strengthen our response. Although I stand four-square behind the Government’s approach of making the matter a strategic priority, I hope that the Minister will reflect on some of the areas of the report in which the Committee wanted DFID to do more or do things differently.

16:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on securing this important debate, and I thank the International Development Committee for providing a wide-ranging and thought-provoking report on the critical issues that we have discussed, to which my Department has formally replied. I thank all those who provided evidence to that Committee, and I thank the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker)—my opposite number—for their contributions. We are discussing an issue about which everyone is concerned, and on which everyone is committed to moving forward.

Tackling violence is a human rights and development necessity, and it is a priority for the UK Government. Many points have been raised in the debate, and I will address as many as possible in the time that I have. Since the International Development Committee presented its report on the Government’s work in this area, there have been several developments. Following the recommendation in the report, in November I updated the House in my role as ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas on progress on tackling violence against women and girls.

I will address the issues on female genital mutilation more fully in a moment, but during the past two weeks, for example, I have organised and attended meetings with other cross-Whitehall Ministries. I met religious leaders—an important part of our armoury in tackling FGM—and representatives of the teachers’ unions. They, and indeed everyone, must be partners in this mission.

On 13 November, the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), convened with Sweden the “Keep her safe” event, which brought together UN and NGO leaders and senior Government officials from across the international humanitarian system. They agreed a fundamental new approach to protecting girls and women in emergency situations, which the hon. Member for Luton South raised, to ensure that their needs are addressed as part of the initial response. At the event, £21.6 million in new UK funding was announced to help implement those commitments and protect girls and women in all emergencies.

In line with the Committee’s recommendations, DFID continues to scale up the implementation of programming about violence against women and girls. In Afghanistan, we recently announced a new £18.5 million funding package to help support women, which will strengthen access to justice for women who are victims of violence and raise public awareness of women’s rights.

The hon. Member for Luton South raised access to justice and the balance that had to be struck. That ties in with the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative, which deals with the matter at the sharp end, where rape is used as a weapon of war. If there is impunity, we cannot move forward. Just as with preventing sexual violence in conflict, access to justice must go hand in hand with a change in social norms.

In Somalia, to bring gender issues to the forefront of our work, DFID recently created an internal gender policy group, which is led and chaired by senior management and has representatives from each sector. The scale-up is being supported by robust evidence from sources such as the violence against women and girls help desk, which has provided support to DFID country offices, and further DFID guidance on addressing violence against women and girls through security and justice programming. That note is part of a series of DFID guidance notes on violence against women and girls, and it will further support our scale-up efforts by providing practical advice to staff and other UK Departments.

The £25 million research and innovation fund to address violence against women and girls will support programme implementation and scale-up by generating evidence on what works for the prevention of such violence. Although I share the frustration at the time that some such measures will take, some of them will go into play very soon. When we scale up, we must be sure that we are making an impact on behalf of British taxpayers and doing something that works, not something that we rush into only to discover that it was not what we needed to do.

I have many points to address. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon asked about the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Sudan, and whether VAWG would be prioritised. We are currently in the process of a round of resource allocation across all DFID offices, and we are looking in detail at how we can most effectively scale up our VAWG programmes. I have mentioned Somalia, but in Nigeria we have a major programme, “Voices for Change,” to tackle the underlying causes of VAWG and gender inequality. DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are working closely on VAWG programmes in DRC, ensuring preventative action and effective responses to survivors.

I was asked what we are doing about water, sanitation and hygiene, or WASH. DFID has produced a new briefing note on violence against women and girls in emergencies, and over the next year will also produce guidance on how water and sanitation sector programmes can address such violence. Importantly, through the sanitation and hygiene applied research for equity programme—SHARE—DFID has funded development of a violence, gender and WASH practitioner toolkit, which will be available this year.

I was asked how we are ensuring that VAWG is prioritised in multilateral agencies. We are keen to ensure that VAWG is a high priority in multilaterals. UN Women is a key partner in such matters, and DFID helps to fund it. The call to action in November last year that I described secured commitments from a wide range of UN agencies to put women and girls at the heart of their humanitarian response. That includes protecting them from violence. It was a pledge not so much on finance, but on what UN agencies would do under the circumstances.

A lot of right hon. and hon. Members raised the issue of female genital mutilation, an issue about which I am passionate. I think that that comes from frustration, having spent two and a half years at the Home Office. Our diaspora is intrinsically linked with the developing world but there has been a lack of prosecutions. We were challenged on the latter continually, but I must also say that there were no prosecutions under the 13 years of the previous Government.

FGM is a major issue. I am sure that we all recognise how challenging it is for a child to give evidence against their parent. As many Members said, FGM is child abuse and it is illegal, so the inevitable consequences are that the child will be removed from the parents virtually as soon as it is known that something has happened. That has been the great inhibitor. It is important that we have prosecutions, as much as anything because of the message that they send out. The answer is clearly not to send 20,000 sets of parents to jail, but the message that FGM is illegal and unacceptable is very important.

The Minister for Crime Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), is champing at the bit on this issue. He is working closely with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who believes that we are very near to the first few prosecutions. Part of the issue has been getting preparatory evidence on computers. That way, the process might not necessarily involve a child victim giving evidence in court—there will be evidence of plans to take a child to a mother country to have them cut. We are optimistic about prosecutions. I could not agree more with those Members who said that we must not tiptoe on cultural eggshells. For a long time, that has been the problem and a challenge. I am clear that that can have no standing. FGM is against our laws.

The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire asked about what happens in France. They examine every girl every year until the age of six, as part of other examinations. When I met with my opposite number in France, she said, “You know, we just have a little look.” Given that there is no question about 99% of our population—they do not practise FGM—that would not necessarily be the best use of resources for us. There must be continual pressure from the Metropolitan police and the other forces around the country that were mentioned. They are now proactively looking for those who are perpetrating FGM and seeking to prosecute them.

Many Members also raised the point that our work should be much more to do with awareness and getting into and working with communities. The women of our Somali communities are very hidden. When I visited a school in Bristol, the first primary school in the country that has an FGM safeguarding policy and brings in the Somali mothers, that was the first time that they had all met to be able to discuss such things. The issues are not discussed in the way that we might in this country—the women are very isolated. That is why I have been trying to involve religious and community leaders, alongside those agencies that are working in this field and are best able to get into the communities and to deal with awareness.

I have also involved the TUC and the teaching unions, because they have an opportunity to look at teacher training and other such issues. Indeed, I am working with other Ministers on safeguarding, because the issues are hugely important. The Home Office produced guidelines—I am going to run out of time—for front-line workers, but we were shocked to find that eight out of 10 teachers do not even know about the guidelines, so we are working with the Department for Education on raising awareness about such issues.

I could not agree more with the view that we must be flexible with funding. However, the £35 million that was raised is, in a sense, to get things started. We need to find out what is right—part of the money goes on gathering evidence; part of it goes on social change. The funding helps to support the African movement, as well as the UN resolution banning FGM.

Early and forced marriage is very much in the same vein as FGM, inasmuch as both are social norms. That is a terrible indictment, because such norms are the most deep-seated and hardest things to change. That is why I am particularly interested in behavioural change. We continue to work with Girls Not Brides to develop a global theory of change on early and forced marriage, to underpin the new programmes.

[Pauline Latham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I have only half a second, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not.

We are pushing for an ambitious and stand-alone goal on gender for 2015, including strong target language on preventing and eliminating VAWG, as set out in the high-level panel report. It is feasible to have an ultimate target of eliminating VAWG and to measure progress towards that as we do for other ambitious goals, such as that for ending hunger.

I want quickly to address stoning in Afghanistan. Women and girls there continue to face huge issues. The proposal to reinstate stoning is symptomatic of the situation in which women and girls find themselves. In fact, I met the Afghan Minister for Education only yesterday. I raised the issue of violence against women and girls in schools in Afghanistan. He gave me many assurances, but one challenge in Afghanistan is that things are decentralising. Individual communities are going to be far from central control.

I must finish there. I am very sorry, but I will try to write to Members to answer the points that I could not address in such a short time.

16:38

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I thank the Minister and all Members who took part. We can see how strongly people feel about the issues we have been discussing, and how determined they are that we should maintain pressure to improve the situation and make progress.

Last week, I asked the Prime Minister whether the conflict, stability and security fund would have specific targets for violence against women and girls. He did not then know the answer and has not yet replied. I urge the Minister to get not only an answer but the right answer.

We have had a very good debate. I thank everyone who has taken part—both the members of my Committee and others. It was very much appreciated.

Question put and agreed to.

16:39

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

Thursday 23 January 2014

Consumer Rights Bill

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

Today the Government are introducing the Consumer Rights Bill. This Bill is a fundamental reform of consumer legislation so that consumers’ and businesses’ key rights and responsibilities are clear, easily understood and updated to take account of purchases involving digital content. It contains important new protections for consumers alongside measures to lower regulatory burdens for business, all with the aim of making markets work better, which is good for consumers, good for business and therefore good for growth.

Alongside the Bill, the Government are publishing a Command Paper, which includes the Government’s response to each of the recommendations made by the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee. We are very grateful to the Committee for their detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. A copy of that Command Paper can be accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ consumer-rights-bill.

Land Registry

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

The Department has today launched a consultation around proposals to help Land Registry deliver more efficient and modern services.

Land Registry is responsible for keeping and maintaining details of the ownership of land and property in England and Wales.

Government believe that changing Land Registry’s commercial model by separating policy and delivery of services between two entities could have a number of benefits and enable it to move more successfully into the digital age.

The proposal is to create a new company, still subject to Government oversight, which would be responsible for delivering land registration services. A separate Office of the Chief Land Registrar would be retained in Government to carry out regulatory and fee-setting functions.

This model could allow a greater focus on service delivery, greater operational flexibility around pay, recruitment and possibly provide other services and a more clearly defined relationship with Government.

Land Registry is currently moving into a new phase as it embarks on a new business strategy designed to deliver significant benefits for customers, including:

Making more land registration services available online, this should reduce processing times, risk of error and the costs of registration;

Delivering more efficient services, including creating a centralised access point for local land charge searches;

Maximising the reuse of property data for the benefit of the economy.

As Land Registry moves into this new phase, it is critical that the business has the right commercial model to best deliver these benefits to its customers and the wider economy.

No decision on ownership and control of this new service delivery company has been made, and several options are being considered. The Government will ensure that Land Registry customers and the integrity of the register will continue to be protected following the outcome of the consultation.

The consultation will close on 20 March 2014. I am placing a copy of the consultation in the Library of the House.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Government have today published a consultation paper on the future of civil partnership in England and Wales. This is the full public consultation required under section 15 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The Government will consider responses to the consultation alongside evidence about marriage of same sex couples, civil partnership and possible options for the future.

The consultation document is available on the Culture, Media and Sport website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-future-of-civil-partnership-in-england-and-wales

Gift of Equipment (Syria)

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

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

It is now over two years since the Syrian conflict began and the situation remains catastrophic. Our estimates are that over 100,000 people have been killed, with more than half of the Syrian population now in need of humanitarian assistance. The UK is committed to doing all it can to promote a political settlement to the conflict and to alleviate the humanitarian suffering.

My statements to the House on 11 November 2013 and 13 January 2014 outlined the intensive political and practical support we are providing to the national coalition to alleviate suffering inside Syria. As a part of this work, the UK is supporting emerging moderate local governance structures in opposition-held areas to improve the delivery of services to local communities. We plan to expand a UK-funded pilot project to train and equip local council civil defence teams in northern Syria, enabling them to provide search and rescue, fire-fighting and first-aid services in areas under attack. This project is carried out in co-operation with the National Coalition’s Assistance Coordination Unit (ACU) and builds on earlier deliveries of civil resilience equipment to local councils through the ACU.

The departmental minute laid today sets out in detail our plans to gift further civil defence equipment to local council teams in Syria as part of the expanded project. This gift will consist of sets of equipment for nine 25-man teams, including commercially available personal radios, cutting and rescue tools, uniforms and protective gear such as fire helmets and goggles, fire extinguishers, stretchers and individual medical kits. The total cost of the proposed gift is approximately £700,000, which will be met by the Government’s conflict pool fund. The overall value of the uplift to the project is £2.1 million, which includes training for nine teams of approximately 25 people, a communications campaign, support for mechanics to repair and restore fire-fighting vehicles, and crisis management training for governorate level council, police and civil defence leaders.

The equipment will help local communities deal with the aftermath of attacks, improve the service delivery capability and legitimacy of local councils and assist them in saving the lives of those injured and in alleviating humanitarian suffering. It will also underline the UK’s continued support to the moderate opposition.

The use of conflict pool funds to cover the costs of the gift has been approved by members of the conflict pool strategic programme board from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development and Ministry of Defence. The gift has been scrutinised to ensure that the provision of this equipment is consistent with export controls and complies with our international obligations. Recipients have been carefully selected to prevent equipment being given to those involved in extremist activities or human rights violations. All our assistance is carefully calibrated and legal, is aimed at alleviating human suffering and supporting moderate groups and is regularly monitored and evaluated.

The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which the departmental minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I would like to inform the House that changes have been made to the arrangements for publishing reports of the independent chief inspector for borders and immigration. The reports prepared by the chief inspector will from today be laid before Parliament in order to bring the process into line with the current legislation.

There is a requirement under section 50 of the UK Borders Act 2007 for the Home Secretary to lay copies of the reports of the independent chief inspector before Parliament. This requirement has only recently been brought to my notice and therefore, in order to comply with the legislation, I will now be laying the reports I receive from the chief inspector before Parliament.

This change in process will ensure that the requirements of the legislation are fulfilled but there is no change to the independence of the chief inspector and the work done by his office. The only amendment I may make to the reports that I receive are through the provision for redacting material on the grounds of national security or an individual’s safety in section 50 (3) of the 2007 Act.

All reports will continue to be available on the chief inspector’s website once they have been laid before Parliament.

Today two reports are being laid before Parliament; the first one is a report on the short notice inspection of a sham marriage enforcement operation and the second is report on an inspection of Border Force operations at Stansted airport. Neither of these reports contains redactions.

Copies of both of these reports are available in the Vote Office.

Scotland Analysis (Borders and Citizenship)

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am today laying before the House the 10th paper in the Government’s Scotland analysis programme, “Scotland analysis: Borders and citizenship”. This series of publications is designed to inform the debate on Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom ahead of this year’s referendum.

This paper analyses the UK’s framework for managing its common external border, considers the benefits of an absence of internal borders within the UK, as well as the implications for both if people in Scotland vote for independence. It also considers the impact that Scottish independence may have on issues of citizenship.

The paper sets out the importance of borders and the considerations that states around the world must take into account when determining how to manage their borders. It then analyses the UK’s internal and external borders, and examines the current framework for managing the UK’s external border.

The paper then considers the UK’s policies and systems for managing the movement of people into the UK, both for short-term visits and economic migration. It sets out some of the issues that the Government of an independent Scottish state may have to consider when determining how to manage the movement of people into and out of an independent Scotland.

It also assesses how the movement of goods, both legal and illegal, between Scotland and the UK could be impacted if Scotland became an independent state, and the challenges this could pose for the Governments of both the continuing UK and an independent Scottish state.

Finally, the paper also considers the question of citizenship and how an independent Scottish state may define its own citizenship policy. It then analyses the impact on the citizenship of the continuing UK if Scotland became an independent state.

Future papers from the Scotland analysis programme will be published over the course of 2014 to ensure that people in Scotland have access to the facts and information ahead of the referendum.

Copies of the paper are available in the Vote Office.

EU Treaties

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

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

The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have prepared the fourth annual report to Parliament on the application of protocols 19 and 21 to the treaty on European Union (TEU) and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (“the treaties”) in relation to EU Justice and Home Affairs matters. The report is submitted on behalf of both my own Department and the Home Office.

On 9 June 2008 the then Leader of the House of Lords committed to table a report in Parliament each year setting out the decisions taken by the Government in accordance with protocol 21 (“the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol”) and to make that report available for debate. These commitments were designed to ensure that the views of the Scrutiny Committees should inform the Government’s decision-making process.

The Minister for Europe confirmed this commitment on behalf of the coalition Government in 2011, and this is the fourth such report. It covers the period 1 December 2012 to 30 November 2013. For completeness, the report also covers the application of protocol 19 to the treaties on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the EU (“the Schengen opt-out protocol”).

Over the period covered in the report, the Government took 21 decisions on UK participation in EU Justice and Home Affairs legislative proposals. Of these, the UK opted in to 13 proposals. The Government have not taken any decisions under the Schengen opt-out protocol during the period covered by this report. At the point of publication, 11 EU legislative proposals are subject to ministerial and parliamentary consideration with regard to an opt-in decision. The report also provides an indicative list of legislative proposals which are expected to be brought forward over the next 12 months that are likely to require a decision on UK participation under the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in or Schengen opt-out protocols.

Machinery of Government Change: CANparent Trial

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This written ministerial statement confirms responsibility for the CANparent trial and associated market development contract will transfer from the Department for Education to the Department of Health on 1 April 2014 for one year. Responsibility for parenting policy will remain with the Department for Education.

Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

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

The Dartford-Thurrock crossing charging scheme account for 2012-13 is published today under section 3(1)(d) of the Trunk Road Charging Schemes (Bridges and Tunnels) (Keeping of Accounts) (England) Regulations 2003. A copy of the accounts will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Pensions

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Written Statements

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

This Government are committed to tackling high charges in workplace pension schemes, in particular, for those workers who do not exercise any choice, where they are automatically enrolled into a scheme then remain in the default fund.

Our consultation on pension scheme charging closed at the end of November. We continue to examine the responses, and will bring forward further proposals, in due course. However, one strong theme to emerge is about the timing for the implementation of any changes.

We remain strongly minded to cap pension scheme charges in the default funds used for automatic enrolment. However, we have consistently encouraged firms to start getting ready for automatic enrolment 12 months ahead of the time the new employer duties apply to them. Therefore, to give those employers at least 12 months’ notice of the rules that will apply to them, I can confirm that any cap on charges will not be introduced before April 2015.

Grand Committee

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Grand Committee

Thursday, 23 January 2014.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Grand Committee

Committee

14:00

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard)]

My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee on the National Insurance Contributions Bill.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

1: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Post implementation review
(1) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs must, after one year, prepare a post implementation review of the employment allowance which the Minister shall lay before Parliament.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) what impact the employment allowance has had on the number of jobs;(b) what impact the employment allowance has had on wage levels;(c) overall take up of the employment allowance; (d) the geographical spread of businesses, charities and sports clubs taking up the employment allowance; and(e) the effectiveness of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ strategy to promote the employment allowance.”

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Committee’s affairs will not be too protracted today, as we clearly have a consensus from the House that the Bill is a pretty good thing. As the Minister already knows, it is the Opposition’s view that in general terms the Bill pursues a good policy and is vastly superior to the sad instrument that was relied on for the first three years of this Administration with regard to the holiday on national insurance contributions—which of course failed dismally in both its reach and its general effectiveness, with every conceivable expectation that the Government expressed before that Bill became law being disavowed by the process over the following three years. We are now in the business of recognising that the principle behind the Bill is far superior and is a position that we broadly endorse. However, it is incumbent on us to ensure that the policy works effectively and that the Bill that is the basis of that policy is fit for purpose in every respect.

The amendment would require the Government to carry out and publish a post-implementation review of the employment allowance, including HMRC’s assessment of its impact on jobs and wage levels, the overall take-up, the geographical spread of businesses that take it up and the effectiveness of HMRC’s strategy to promote it. I emphasise all these points because on every single one of them the previous policy instrument on NICs failed conclusively, and it is important that all those targets are effectively hit. That is why, although I am not underestimating the difficulties of these demands in some areas, we want to see an assessment, as far as the Government are able to provide one, of job and wage levels as a result of the measure.

We certainly want to be reassured on the overall take-up and the geographical spread of businesses taking it up. The previous Bill had a geographical element to it, which we the Opposition never understood —but we did not have to understand it because the Bill had such a limited impact for good anywhere that those who were left out had missed very little indeed. For obvious reasons, as the Minister will appreciate, we are concerned about significant regional disparities in the employment figures, particularly with regard to young people. That is why we want this review to cover a geographical dimension.

That also brings us on to the extent to which the Government will be successful in promoting the measure. After all, a great deal of the expectation is that the beneficiaries will be small and medium-sized enterprises. The medium-sized ones probably do an effective job in keeping up to date and four-square with government initiatives, and we know that the large corporations monitor the Government so effectively that not infrequently—we will come to this later—they pay a great deal less tax than perhaps they ought.

Small businesses inevitably have a problem with legislation. Part of the difficulty with the previous legislation was the conspicuous failure to promote the concept widely enough for take-up to be at the level for which people—certainly Ministers—had hoped. We want to see that rectified as far as this measure is concerned. The amendment, therefore, establishes the necessity for a report that would guarantee a review to provide early indications of the success or otherwise of the policy. We might, as a result, see the Government learning from difficulties that may be developing.

It took a long time for the penny to drop last time. I recall that it was three years before the previous amendment to the legislation on national insurance contributions was finally written off as being unsuccessful, which shows how slow the Government can be, and how blunt their antennae, in picking up the responses of people who are meant to benefit from the legislation. We want this review, therefore, to oblige the Government to face up to these questions—and to do so early.

The amendment we are proposing follows a clause which was retabled on Report in the Commons. We are retabling it in the Lords because of the difficulties of the earlier legislation; we cannot emphasise too strongly how much we want this to be successful. We note that the Government outlined in the Commons the complexity of some of these issues, but we think it is worth trying to measure the impact of this measure on employment and wages. It seems sensible at least to consider the relationship between the employment allowance and job and wage levels. The Minister will recognise that we have seen the benefit of some of the responses in the other place to this major proposition, but I hope that he has had time to reflect, that his officials have appreciated the anxieties that were expressed in the other House, and that today we will get from him a more constructive response than we obtained elsewhere. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the proposed new clause seeks to require HMRC to publish a post-implementation review of the employment allowance after one year. I would like to explain why this new clause is unnecessary.

The tax information and impact note already commits the Government to keep the scheme under review through ongoing communication with taxpayer groups affected by it. Moreover, in Committee in the Commons on 21 November last year, and on Report in the Commons on 10 December, the Exchequer Secretary agreed that the Government should publish information twice a year about the overall take-up of the employment allowance, including by geographical location. I am happy to repeat that commitment in the Moses Room today.

This amendment focuses on the number of jobs created by the employment allowance. However, while the employment allowance will clearly reduce the cost of taking on new staff for small businesses and charities, it will be up to those businesses and charities to decide how they use the resulting NICs savings. I remind the Committee of the comments made by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and by the Federation of Small Businesses at the evidence session in the House of Commons on 19 November last year, to the effect that it is impossible to get precise numbers. We cannot conduct the equivalent of a randomised trial with tax policy to determine the number of jobs created because of the allowance. As the IFS pointed out, there are a number of factors in the economy simultaneously influencing the number of jobs.

The Government have not set any target for the number of jobs we expect to be created, although survey evidence from the FSB suggests that 28% of small businesses will use the savings to employ additional staff. It would not, therefore, be possible to provide information about the number of jobs created as a direct result of this measure. Similarly with wage levels, the same research from the FSB suggests that 29% of small businesses would use the NICs savings to boost staff wages. However, it would be difficult precisely to quantify that effect, given that wage levels are subject to many different pressures, varying from business to business.

The new clause also requires an assessment of HMRC’s strategy to promote the employment allowance. HMRC has already been proactive in promoting the allowance, having spoken to various stakeholders—including representatives of software providers, charities and small and medium-sized enterprises—about the design and operation of the measure. There is continuing engagement between HMRC and those stakeholders on guidance for employers and publicity. As a result of these discussions, communications to raise awareness of the allowance will begin more widely in February and March this year to maximise impact in the crucial period running up to the introduction of the allowance in April, using a range of HMRC publications and products and the department’s national network of local Working Together groups. As a result, we are confident that employers across the UK will be ready to claim the allowance in April. These efforts will continue after April to support take-up from companies that have not done so at that point.

With these reassurances, and in the light of the Government’s existing agreement to make information about take-up available twice yearly, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the additional information he has given about the reinforcement of the necessary publicity to promote awareness among those who could benefit from the allowance. I recognise that the issue is being taken seriously. It cannot be taken seriously enough. The Minister is absolutely right to cite what the FSB thinks can be achieved, and we recognise that the Government have to set their sights for advantages within a fairly low range in the early days. It takes time for people to appreciate the advantages.

The Minister made one passing reference to charities. We have no anxiety about the ability of very large charities to keep up with legislation, although they tend to be more preoccupied with legislation that will affect them in other Bills before the House, rather than this more benevolent provision. However, the Minister will appreciate that we are anxious about other charities on that score. I am grateful that he mentioned them en passant—although not as strongly as I would have wished. Nevertheless, it was a constructive and helpful reply and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

2: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Administrative and compliance costs review
(1) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs must, after six months of this Act coming into force, prepare a review which the Minister shall lay before Parliament.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) whether there are any administrative or compliance costs associated with the employment allowance being reported by those applying for it; and(b) whether businesses, charities and sports clubs are having any problems in claiming the employment allowance.”

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, this amendment would require a one-off administrative and compliance costs review to take place six months after the employment allowance comes into force. We are using this amendment to ask questions about the 10% of businesses that the Government think will not claim the employment allowance, and to explore ways in which they might be engaged more successfully. We are asking whether the guidance will be available in sufficient time for people to get their software ready.

The Minister’s colleague in the Commons indicated that the necessary changes to software and the pressure on businesses, particularly small businesses, would be challenging. Evidence received by colleagues in the other place suggested that normally three to six months is required for systems to be developed, including time for specification and documentation of the changes, development, testing and release to clients. That cannot be started effectively until it is known what is expected.

The indications were that the guidance would be ready early in the new year—in January. Will the Minister update the Committee on where we are? We believe that there has been some slippage from that optimistic date. Will the system be available in sufficient time for the response that we all want to see? A review would enable us to check six months on that software-type issues or unexpected administrative costs have been ironed out and dealt with. That would give the Government an early opportunity to rectify what needs to be changed.

14:15

Here again, we are aware that it is important for HMRC to communicate with interested groups and gauge their view of the employment allowance. It was also said in the other place that the employment allowance would be very easy to claim. Easy for government often looks a good deal more difficult at the other end. I want the Minister to flesh out that point and to indicate that arrangements are in hand and on time to render this amendment unnecessary. The amendment reflects our anxieties.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the proposed new clause would require that HMRC should, six months after the Act comes into force, prepare a review to consider whether there are any administrative or compliance costs that have been reported by employers claiming the allowance, and whether businesses, charities and community amateur sports clubs are having problems in claiming it. I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord that this proposed new clause is also unnecessary for two main reasons.

First, as I pointed out when commenting on the previous proposed new clause, the tax information and impact note already commits the Government to keep the scheme under review through communication with stakeholders affected by the measure. As part of this review, HMRC will speak to stakeholders to gauge their views of the allowance and to ascertain the ways in which it is being used. HMRC talked to various stakeholders over the summer and autumn about the design and operation of the allowance, including the claims process. There are continuing discussions between HMRC and these groups around guidance and publicity, and these will continue after the launch of the allowance in April.

A crucial part of this work has been discussions with software developers. As I said, HMRC has held discussions with representatives of charities, payroll software providers and businesses to help inform the design of the new system. In particular, in July last year the 2014-15 RTI technical pack for software developers was published on the HMRC website and specified that an employment allowance indicator would be needed on the employer payment summary. There is ongoing engagement with stakeholder groups around this draft employer guidance with a view to making employer guidance available early next month. However, this does not affect the calculations in the software packages.

HMRC will also target communications to key stakeholders and use HMRC publications, for example, the Employer Bulletin in February and March, to further build awareness. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that the difficulties that he is rightly concerned about are likely to be minimised by the fact that the allowance is very easy to claim. Employers will receive it through their routine operation of PAYE. They will simply need to confirm their eligibility via their regular payroll processes. Enabling the employment allowance to be claimed by employers through their payroll software will ensure that it is straightforward to claim. They will simply have to indicate yes, once, in their employer payment summary. The claim will continue from tax year to tax year.

After making the claim, employers will not need to pay their first £2,000 of secondary class 1 NICs. If their secondary class 1 NICs liability is less than that in the first month or quarter, dependent on whether they pay their PAYE liabilities monthly or quarterly, any unused allowance will be carried forward to the next month or quarter until it is exhausted. If an employer does not have an employer payment summary on his own software, he can use the free HMRC Basic PAYE Tools package. For the very small number of eligible employers—around 2,000—who still submit their returns to HMRC on paper, there will be a paper process to mirror the IT process.

The Government are very keen that this new proposal should have the maximum possible impact because we want to see it promote economic development. We have gone to considerable lengths to engage with the industry and provide the private sector and the charities sector with information in good time. We think that we have prepared well. The guidance will be out next month and there will be ongoing discussions with all the relevant stakeholder groups and individual firms and organisations that might claim it. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment with his proposed new clause.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, once again I am grateful to the Minister for fleshing out some of the arrangements that the Government will put in place to ensure that this operation is as straightforward as possible.

Reference was made to sports clubs. In my previous incarnation before the most recent general election, I had quite a bit to do with sports clubs and their administration. I have not the slightest doubt that the mega-clubs of the Premier League have no need for the Government to advise them on how they should organise their tax affairs. They seem to be pretty adroit in doing so at present. However, sports clubs run by a small number of people, where decisions are generally taken by amateurs, even if there are one or two professional employees, are a different matter. They will need to be provided with the easiest possible transactions to ensure that they benefit from this measure. We want to see sports clubs and charities as well as mainstream employers adopt a positive, outward-looking perspective as regards young people. After all, they are most likely to engage successfully with youngsters through the sport in which the latter engage.

I emphasise to the Minister that this is a probing amendment. I am grateful for his assurances that the ability of even the smallest employer to make the claim when it is due does not come down to much more than ticking one box, or even answering yes or no in that box. I am reassured on that front. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clauses 4 to 8 agreed.

Clause 9: Reduction of secondary Class 1 contributions for certain age groups

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

3: Clause 9, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
“(13) The Treasury shall publish a review of the level of youth unemployment as at December 2013 and the effect on the level of youth unemployment if the amendments made in this section were required to be brought into force on 6 April 2014.”

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

This amendment would place a direct responsibility on the Treasury, so I know that the Minister will respond to it creatively, positively and in the full recognition that we will expect him to fulfil all the obligations entered into.

We, of course, see the advantages of this initiative and we hope that it will encourage employers to take on more young people under the age of 21. We all know the difficulties that our society has undergone in recent years in terms of employment, and we all take pleasure in some welcome signs at last of an improvement in the employment statistics. But those improvements are up against a colossally difficult situation for young people. They have the right to expect, after they have been through their educational experience, at whatever level, that they are part of a society that ought to welcome them into gainful employment—but it presents a desperately bleak face at present.

We all know of the numbers of applications that people have to make, even for roles that are far from the massively competitive positions that we expect at graduate or postgraduate level. We are talking about school leavers who have to produce a CV dozens of times to make any kind of progress. Progress for most of the time, of course, is just the adjustment to rejection. We recognise that the Bill represents a contribution towards helping young people. We do not think that it is bold enough. It does not go far enough to tackle the great problems that we have with youth unemployment, but the situation will be greatly improved if we can measure progress. That is what the amendment would do. It would require a review to be undertaken on the effects of the policy on youth unemployment.

Of course, this is a probing amendment. I have no intention of taking it further, but I am asking the Minister to put on record as much as he can about the likely positive impact of this proposal. He will appreciate that we are concerned that many months will elapse before it starts to take effect. As I enumerated in discussing an earlier amendment, the Government’s record in this area is not good. They produced a policy that we severely criticised at the time and thought was destined to fail, but they seemed to take an inordinate amount of time to recognise that its failure had occurred. That is why the Government are in this position. On the national insurance contribution dimension to employment issues, these were wasted years and there is not much time left in the present Parliament for the Government to show real achievement.

We asked questions in the other place about crucial issues, but we did not feel that we got answers that totally satisfied us. On one question we got no answer at all: how will it be paid for? I would like the Minister to comment on that. It also raises the issue of how tight the timeframe is for employers. I recognise that they will have to move with some dispatch to take advantage of these proposals, but that is what the country is expecting. In circumstances of youth unemployment being in such a critical state, we are expecting employers and the Government to act with dispatch, and effectively.

Will the Minister comment on an aspect that was emphasised in the other place—namely, that we have to take care what demands we place on IT systems as regards the ability of receiving bodies to get their systems squared up, and of the Treasury to adjust to the new measure? The Treasury ought to be light on its feet in these terms. If it is slow, that may be occasioned by the number of disasters that have befallen other departments in this context—for which I am sure the Treasury disavows any responsibility. However, given that this policy is urgently needed, it ought to recognise that responses which blame the amount of time needed to get IT systems squared up look a little—I will not use the word “evasive”, as it is a pejorative term in the tax context, but they suggest that the Treasury is trying to excuse a lack of drive at the centre. I hope that the Minister will reassure me on that point.

14:30

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, this proposed new subsection would require the Treasury to publish a review of the level of youth unemployment as of December 2013 and of the effect on the level of youth unemployment if the zero rate of employers’ class 1 NICs on the earnings of employees under the age of 21 were to be brought into force from 6 April 2014 rather than 6 April 2015.

I would like to explain to the noble Lord why I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. The Government are committed to increasing employment levels for all parts of the working-age population. Employment is now at its highest ever level and unemployment is lower than when the Government came to power. The Government recognise the challenges posed by youth unemployment, and dealing with them has long been a priority of ours and of the predecessor Government. For example, around 370,000 young people have been supported through the Work Programme since June 2011. Furthermore, the Youth Contract provides almost £1 billion in funding to support up to 500,000 young people into employment and education opportunities.

The employment figures published yesterday showed another significant fall in youth unemployment. Although it is not enough, it is not the first quarter in which we have seen such a fall, and now the overall aggregate of youth unemployment is falling significantly. As we have already debated, it is extremely difficult to say what proportion of the fall is attributable to one cause rather than another. However, overall, the improved economic environment and the Government’s policies taken together are clearly having a significant beneficial effect on youth unemployment.

The Autumn Statement, which gave another push in this direction by abolishing employer NICs for under-21s, builds on the policies already in place, and has been widely welcomed by industry. Indeed, John Cridland at the CBI said that the policy,

“will make a real difference and help tackle the scourge of youth unemployment”.

However, I see little point in the Treasury publishing a review of the level of youth unemployment. The Office for National Statistics is responsible for publishing statistics on employment, and these regular releases are available to the public through the ONS website. There is a limited case for the Treasury intervening and also publishing a review.

In addition, I do not think that there is any value in attempting to estimate the impact of a policy introduced at a theoretical date, and I am not sure that the noble Lord is pushing this element of the amendment particularly hard. The Autumn Statement announced that employer NICs would be abolished for those under 21 years of age from 6 April 2015. Attempting to deliver this a year earlier on 6 April 2014 would increase the administrative costs to business, and rushing the measure through in this manner would be likely to lead to cost, confusion and the failure of many employers to take it up.

Such a tight timeframe would not give employers, payroll software developers and HMRC sufficient time to update their IT systems. As regards HMRC, there would not be enough time to ensure that the policy was implemented in a way that does not disrupt its other important IT systems. These difficulties were recognised by the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals, which commented on the Autumn Statement:

“We … welcome the news that this will not be enacted until April 2015, giving the payroll industry time to plan properly.”

This is not a case of the Government being complacent or lacking in energy and drive; it is simply that I do not want to be at the Dispatch Box under the lash of the noble Lord because the Government have not implemented a policy with the maximum possible efficiency and effectiveness. The timetable that we have adopted, in our view, will enable us to do it in due time, so that employers and HMRC can prepare and, when the policy comes into effect, it will be well prepared for by all who need to implement it. The fact that it has already been announced means that employers can begin to think about how they will choose to benefit from it when it comes into force.

The noble Lord asked how much it will cost and how it will be funded. In its first year, it is expected that it will cost £465 million, rising to £530 million by 2018. Although the policy obviously carries a significant cost, overall, the Autumn Statement in which it was introduced was fiscally neutral and reinforced the Government’s commitment to reducing the deficit. It is worth repeating that this policy represents half a billion pounds-worth of support to young people in employment—so it is very significant and, we hope, will have an equally significant impact on youth unemployment.

In view of all those considerations, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I was certainly not underestimating the significance of the programme. We all know the magnitude of the task before the Government in dealing with youth unemployment, so the figures that the noble Lord has cited seem apt for the task in hand—except that we consider the scheme inadequate for the scale of young people’s difficulties, which we can already measure.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us those facts and am reassured by them. On the question of delay, I sometimes think, on the issues that we have raised with regard to the compatibility of IT operations, that in the wonderful world in which we live, the magnificent speed with which computers can bring huge advantages to society have to be balanced against the fact that the introduction of legislation seems to be tied up in a computed timescale which all pen-pushers would regard as unacceptable. After all, what is the Minister saying to me? He is saying, “We recognise that the present policy that we are operating on the role that insurance contributions can make to improve employment is a dead loss to the country. It has such marginal utility that no one will weep for its passing”. But that policy has dominated three years of this Government’s life, and he is saying that its replacement will see the light of day virtually on the brink of the next Government coming to power.

Of course the Minister is right to say that proper consultation has to take place, that we must not add to the burdens on business unnecessarily and that computer systems are mightily complex and vastly costly when they go wrong. The Government are in quite a good place to assess the costs when computer systems go wrong, because they have a few instances on their doorstep at present. However, the implication is straightforward: the policy of using national insurance contributions and elements of alleviation has failed for three years, and it will make only a marginal impact over the duration of this Government’s life. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed.

Debate on whether Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, we have taken the strategy of objecting to the clause because as a matter of principle we want to discuss with the Minister what is going on. Of course, it is not that we are objecting to the application of GAAR to this policy; we want to address some issues with regard to tax avoidance. I must say that I will make a note for any succeeding Labour Ministers whose path happens to cross mine in the future that when we produce concepts that will be abbreviated down to four letters, they might like to produce a somewhat more attractive word than GAAR. Life is difficult enough. We do not often speak the language of Shakespeare in the House, but to constantly use initials that grate on the mind the moment they are introduced is misfortunate. However, it is GAAR that we will be talking about and that is the word I shall use throughout my contribution. I like to think that I am giving the Minister due notice that I shall think of something more felicitous for the Government 15 months from now—but that is probably wishful thinking on my ability rather than a prediction about whether we will have a different Government in 15 months’ time.

GAAR is not an answer to all tax avoidance, as is freely recognised. In fact, when looking at the returns thus far, we are all too well aware of how little they measure up to the massive challenges presented by those who seek to avoid tax with dextrous moves and huge resources. We know the ability of multinational organisations to indicate, in any administration that has an effective tax scheme, that very little of their operation is ever tax-worthy and tax-liable. Of course, a great deal of their activity is carried out in administrations that have precious little in the way of ability to abstract tax from them. That is to say nothing of the transfer of tax out of a significant country in which they operate: for example, the UK, which is a very significant market. The loss of tax revenue to any country is to be deplored when the activities of these companies are so significant in this country.

GAAR, as it stands, is so narrowly defined that the number of occasions on which it can be usefully deployed is obviously limited. The scale of the concept that the Government are working on at present is ludicrous in relation to closing the tax gap that we have all exemplified and identified. It will not go anywhere near closing the tax gap of any one multinational whose figures have come to light in recent years, let alone the totality of the position. We want to prevent that kind of abuse being extended. There is no doubt that the public reaction to those who avoid tax in an extensive and often blatant way is to regard it as utterly unacceptable.

The GAAR is in danger of becoming a bit of a fig leaf for the Government in that, when a difficult issue about tax abuse and avoidance is raised, reference can be made to the GAAR and everything will be resolved. However, the figures utterly and totally belie that fact. That is why I am asking the Minister to reassure the Committee that he will keep in mind the effectiveness of the GAAR. A government scheme for closing down tax avoidance should do more to close a tax gap than they suggest this policy will.

14:45

Members of the Commons asked about penalties in an attempt to stiffen the Government’s implementation of the GAAR. The Minister there said that attaching penalties was a very complex matter and that there needed to be a period during which the GAAR could be bedded in and taxpayers and advisers could get to grips with it, but that future action might be possible. That is another way of getting to the next general election without answering a significant question about a feature of legislation. We thought that the response in the other place was wholly unsatisfactory. I know that the Minister will make strenuous efforts to give me greater reassurance than my honourable friends obtained in the other place when this issue was discussed there.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation also highlighted the fact that it is not always clear what is considered abusive in this context. It gives the example of salary sacrifice, which, of course, is much in use at present. We need greater clarification for employees. It is important that tax avoidance is tackled effectively. The amount of uncollected tax rose last year. The much-vaunted agreement with Switzerland produced an absolutely minute amount in comparison with what the Chancellor had indicated. I say a “minute amount” because, if the Chancellor gives a figure for expected returns and then gets about a quarter of that, it is a pretty severe misjudgment.

I do not wish the clause, which introduces the GAAR into the Bill, to be agreed as legislation is meant to be effective and the GAAR’s record is far from effective in this context. How does the Minister intend to ensure that it is effective in this instance?

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, when I looked at the amendments that the noble Lord had put down and saw this one, I had a wonderful fantasy that what we were seeing here was Labour adopting the stance of being in favour of tax abuse through the use of NICs. I was already beginning to draft the leaflet that would pin this new policy on the Labour Party. Sadly, having listened to what the noble Lord said, I realised that that was not what he was saying at all.

No doubt the Minister will respond to attacks on the GAAR. I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but did not hear any explanation of why, if the GAAR exists and includes provisions in relation to tax abuse generally, NICs should not be included in it. I understand that the noble Lord does not like the GAAR and does not think that it is effective—but, given that we have it, I am not sure why we should not include national insurance in it.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this debate, because it has given me the opportunity to make a suggestion to him about what we might replace the term GAAR with. I wonder whether he would be happy if instead of calling it GAAR, we called it GREAT, as in Great Britain: the general rule to eliminate the avoidance of tax. If we had done that, we might have satisfied the noble Lord, and summed up our emotion when we think of the new provision.

The noble Lord’s basic argument is that we are not doing enough. As a veteran of debates on GAAR over the past decade, I recollect that noble Lords in the previous Government—perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Davies—explained to me why the GAAR was totally impossible, completely unworkable and the Government would not countenance it. Indeed, they did not; they did not do anything in this area. The fact that the noble Lord finds this inadequate is slightly sad, given their failure to act in this area.

The noble Lord raised a number of points of failure, as it were, but one of them was in respect of the agreement with Switzerland. The agreement with Switzerland has not brought in as much as was expected, but the Exchequer has received almost £800 million via that agreement. That is £800 million that we would not have had, £800 million that the previous Government showed no inclination to pursue. That is only one of a large number of measures that we have taken to ensure that people and companies who are avoiding or evading tax do not get away with it. In terms of personal taxation, the Lichtenstein disclosure facility has yielded a lot more than was ever envisaged and, along with the Swiss agreement, is part of driving down the ability of those with large resources to avoid tax.

The new automatic information sharing agreements, which have followed the FATCA legislation in the United States, are revolutionising the ability of HMRC to gain information about the tax affairs and bank holdings of British nationals, whether those are held in the Channel Islands or some Caribbean tax havens. Along with the Swiss and Lichtenstein démarche, that will make a big difference to our ability to get the money to which the Government are entitled. On companies, as the noble Lord knows, the work being done in the OECD, particularly on base-erosion and profit-shifting, is aimed to deal with the particularly egregious examples of large multinationals paying very little tax indeed.

As for domestic action, GAAR is only one plank in our overall strategy. HMRC published Levelling the Tax Playing Field alongside Budget 2013 to provide an update on the strategy and to set out the full range of measures being taken in this area. Some people have argued that because GAAR is tightly focused, it will not hit many of the targets and almost gives a green light to other forms of tax avoidance, but if you look at the whole raft of measures that we have taken in Budgets and Finance Bills—most recently, some announcements in the Autumn Statement—it becomes apparent that we have taken measures to protect several billion pounds of Exchequer revenue which might otherwise not have been agreed.

We have, for example, taken firm action to clamp down on stamp duty land tax avoidance, introducing the new annual tax on enveloped dwellings, and continue to close loopholes as quickly as possible after they emerge. In the summer, we publish a consultation entitled Raising the Stakes on tax avoidance, seeking views on proposals for a new set of obligations for promoters of high-risk tax avoidance schemes.

HMRC does an excellent job defeating tax avoidance schemes in court and making sure that people know that many of the schemes simply do not work, but we know that there is much more to do. That is why the consultation also encouraged users of avoidance schemes to settle their tax affairs after similar cases have been lost in court or tribunal. The GAAR is an important step to increase the pressure on the tax avoidance industry, but it is only one step, and we continue to take further action and devote more resources to the fight against tax avoidance in all its forms.

With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he does not need to press the point.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I am grateful for both contributions to this debate. I particularly appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, coming along just to discuss GAAR with us in the hope that the Labour Party would make an almighty blunder by the amendment. Far from it; we are guided by safe hands. I also congratulate the noble Lord on finding the time to be present in the Committee when there are so many absorbing issues which affect his party, to which I have no doubt he is devoting an inordinate amount of time to get an effective resolution.

As for the Minister, I recognise that any returns from GAAR are to be appreciated. The fact is that the product thus far in several instances falls far below expectation and will, if we go on for much longer, leave the public enormously dissatisfied because we are not implementing an effective strategy to deal with significant employers, particularly the great multinationals. That disillusionment among the electorate will be so manifest that the Government will be driven to improve their performance.

We used the Motion on clause stand part to look at the way in which GAAR might contribute. A little is better than nothing; that is why I will not oppose the clause; but I tell the Minister that the present rate of progress on GAAR, which is evident in this measure but is certainly the case in much more significant terms across the country, falls so far short of public expectation that the Government will be much criticised on it.

However, that is probably a debate for another day, so I do not oppose the Motion that the clause stand part.

Clause 10 agreed.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed.

Clause 13: Class 4 contributions: partnerships

Debate on whether Clause 13 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, if I may, I would like to include Clause 14, which we indicated that we wanted to debate, in this discussion.

The Minister has been constructive in his responses this afternoon, and I thank him for that. If I am less than precise about the issue which I am seeking to identify here, I hope that he will recognise the complexities of the issues involved. We have had one or two late missives. I got my letter from him a mere three-quarters of an hour or so before I came to the debate and, although his prose is lucid and readily comprehensible, I cannot pretend that I am able fully to address that to the Bill in the way that I would like.

If I establish in my argument the broad terms of the issues that give cause for concern, but they lack the absolute precision that we would normally expect, I hope that the Minister will forgive me. I have no doubt that he is both capable himself and will have expert advice to ensure that we have a fruitful discussion about the precise point.

15:00

The first one I can summarise briefly. I could read out what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said, but that may detain us unduly. The Minister knows of its concerns about the legislation, and we share those concerns. The committee is concerned about retrospectivity and whether there are two concepts relating to two different dates. It is concerned about regulations under new Section 4AA in existing Section 4B of the 1992 Act. It indicates that it recognises the value of the retrospective position but it is having difficulty squaring it with Section 4B(5), which appears to constitute retrospection going back for a very long time to December 2004.

I have no doubt that the Minister and his department have been much exercised about this, because the committee drew this to the attention of the House. It would be remiss of me if I did not give him the chance to respond to what is an analytical piece of work on its part, which I cannot hope to match. I know that the Minister has been busy in this respect and I apologise if I have not been able to assimilate all the responses. I am sure that I have given him a clear enough steer for him to indicate why the Government are either secure about the framing of the Bill, or if not, will take steps to effect an amendment that we would otherwise be obliged to do.

[Lord Razzall]

My Lords, the noble Lord has proposed that Clauses 13 and 14 should not stand part of the Bill. The clauses relate to tax avoidance and the abuse of limited liability partnerships. The Minister will be aware that there is concern among professional organisations, particularly the Law Society—not in relation to the Bill itself, but about what will happen in relation to the regulations that will be brought forward. Noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Law Society, because limited liability partnerships were introduced some time ago for professional partnerships, not primarily for tax purposes but to limit the liability of what were previously general partnerships to actions for negligence. That was the major driver for the creation of limited liability partnerships. Most significant law firms and firms of accountants now operate as limited liability partnerships, so there is clearly concern among them that the definitions of employees and partners should be clear.

I received representations from the Law Society this morning, but the basic thesis is that the consultation exercise to determine how a limited liability partner should be properly treated as a partner, or how they should be treated as an employee, was based on the wrong assumptions. The consultation went out on certain assumptions and the proposals on the implementation of the regulations, which I have not seen, change that basis. Therefore, the consultation itself is ineffective.

I appreciate that this does not go to Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill, because they simply provide for the regulations to be brought in. However, between now and Third Reading the Government ought to respond, saying either that the Law Society in its representations is wrong, and why, or alternatively explain how they propose to deal with what I suspect the Law Society is asking for, which is further consultation before the regulations are brought in. I do not know which of the two is correct and I have not had time to form my own opinion on that. This is an important issue because the limited liability partnerships are important structural mechanisms for professional partnerships. We clearly need to get this right before we change the law in this respect.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for the fact that he has only just received the letter. As he pointed out and knows very well, it has been a somewhat unusual week in terms of my ordered conduct of business and the letter was sitting on my desk for rather longer than it should have been. It is only fair to point out that this is no failure on the part of officials to respond in a timely manner; it is my failure. I am sorry that the noble Lord has only just got the letter.

Two points have been raised. The second was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, with regard to consultation. He asked whether the legislation had gone beyond the proposals set out in the consultation document. The Government believe that it does not go further than originally proposed or go beyond the original policy intention. In fact, as a result of the consideration of the consultation responses, the Government dropped the first of the original two conditions which were broadly in line with the employment status tests, which would have meant that even senior partners in major professional firms might have been reclassified as employees. The second condition, which contains ownership or economic interest or risk tests, has been slightly broadened because of this change, but it is still a narrower measure than if both conditions had been implemented as originally proposed. The Government also made clear in Budget 2013 and in the consultation document that the proposals will apply to higher-paid staff in the professional services sector and the lower paid if they are LLP members who receive a largely fixed reward and carry little economic risk or interest.

As regards the status of the secondary legislation and the issue of retrospectivity, the noble Lord referred to two sets of secondary legislation. The first, in Clause 13, had already been published in draft and the second, in Clause 14, was, I believe, enclosed with the letter to the noble Lord and has been put in the Library.

This legislation introduces half of a series of provisions that relate to income tax and national insurance. Slightly unusually, we are legislating for the national insurance part first because we happen to have this Bill before us. The relevant identical provisions relating to income tax will be in the Finance Bill, which will be introduced later in the year and will become the Finance Act 2014. The intention is that the provisions in respect of income tax and national insurance will not apply retrospectively but will apply from April 2014. That is made absolutely clear and set out in the secondary legislation.

I am told that the use of the earlier date in the primary legislation follows precedent in respect of other pieces of legislation and does not mean that the Government will introduce this measure going back a decade or, indeed, going back at all. There are technical arguments for putting that earlier date in the legislation, but the secondary legislation, as I said, makes it absolutely clear that the provisions will come into force from this coming April. Therefore, there is no question of an undue degree of retrospection. I hope that the letter which I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, set that out clearly and, I hope, satisfies the committee and the noble Lord.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, if it satisfies the committee, it will certainly satisfy this noble Lord, because I hold the committee in the greatest respect and I know how thorough it is in its work and its cumulative expertise, which I could not hope to match—so I am reassured on that front, which is why I thought that I did not need to go into an inordinate degree of detail. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I have seen no communication from the Law Society, but one or two people have made representations to us. They do not represent any particular group or profession, but are people who look at these matters closely and thought that they had identified an area of difficulty, which is what I sought to air under the amendments.

I am largely satisfied with the Minister’s response and will of course not press the Motion. I wanted to give him the chance to identify the Government’s position. He knows that we will ensure that those who have made representations to us and others get the chance to examine this thoroughly. I appreciate that, in the spirit of good will that obtains in the Committee, and obtained on Second Reading, the noble Lord is looking forward to a fairly straightforward exercise on Report and at Third Reading. I think that I can go 97% of the way to promising that, but this issue concerns the 3%. I cannot give a full assurance at this stage, because I do not know what the response of others will be, but I am sure that he will have worked hard enough to guarantee that the response is favourable, particularly from the Delegated Powers Committee. I will not press the Motion.

Clause 13 agreed.

Clause 14 and 15 agreed.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clauses 16 to 21 agreed.

Title agreed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Committee adjourned at 3.13 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 23 January 2014.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.

Crime: Metal Theft Task Force

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will continue to support the metal theft task force.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, no one doubts the success of the metal theft task force. The Government have provided funding from January 2012 to 31 March 2014. With a new licensing regime in place since October, we will take a view nearer the time as to how to take forward our efforts to tackle metal theft in the future.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is right to say that the metal theft task force has been successful. The British Transport Police, in particular, deserves a lot of credit for the work that it has done. This has resulted in a 44% reduction in metal theft-related crime in 2012-13 and, according to ACPO, has saved the national infrastructure £339 million, an incredibly good rate of return on the £5.5 million that the task force has cost so far. Does the Minister agree that, with the introduction of cashless transactions, which your Lordships added to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, and the passage of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, we are at last turning the tide against this awful crime? Would it not be extraordinarily short sighted to cut off the funding of the metal theft task force at the end of March and should we not be building on that success and not jeopardising it?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As I said, there is no doubt that the task force has been very successful and, together with the legislative change which this House assisted in bringing in, has made a great difference in the battle against metal theft. A judgment needs to be taken and the Government will consider this. The noble Lord might be interested to know that we received a letter on Tuesday from Paul Crowther, who is the ACPO leader on this matter.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lord, I associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, but the Scrap Metal Dealers Act to which he referred contained one major defect. Local authorities which license scrap metal dealing are not able to do it through their non-executive licensing functions but have to do it through their executive or cabinet, which is causing difficulties and problems. When will this be remedied?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I had not been aware that that was presenting a particular problem and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could advise me further on it. We do not want to create difficulties in the implementation of any legislation. The measures taken have been extremely effective in reducing metal theft and I am sure that the House will welcome that.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, the metal theft task force has been of inestimable value in checking the epidemic of lead theft from churches. Stripping of lead from church roofs has caused extensive rain damage to historic interiors. Will the Minister consult English Heritage, the Churches Conservation Trust and the cathedrals and church buildings division of the Archbishops’ Council as to how the destruction of our heritage can be combated and the work of the task force maintained?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am very pleased to say that one of the effects of the task force and the legislation has been to add greater protection to our historic buildings. I have, myself, been on the roof of Northampton town hall—I did not jump; I climbed down—to see how encoding of the lead on the roof protects that metal. I think the right reverend Prelate will admit that ecclesiastical insurers are now looking at the premiums they have to charge as theft from churches has been greatly reduced. I am pleased to say that a gang of thieves in my own diocese of Lincoln was sentenced very heavily for the damage it had done.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that there are many reputable scrap metal dealers for whom the licensing system is so onerous as to be a restraint of trade? I am referring to a number of Gypsy and Traveller firms which make their living in this way. They have not found it easy to get licences and there is little sympathy in the town hall largely because of prejudice. How can the system be made more user-friendly?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We want to see the trade legitimised in every way and the licensing process is part and parcel of it. I am aware of the noble Baroness’s interest in the welfare of the Gypsy and Traveller community. We are talking to it about ways in which we can make sure that it is properly integrated into the legal framework we have created.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, as thieves stripped the signalling wire overnight recently on the line that I use, which meant that there were no trains for the whole of the following day, which caused immense inconvenience to everybody, particularly me, could the Minister maintain the momentum of this piece of work? It has done a great deal of good, but there is clearly more to be done.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We have not eliminated metal theft and, indeed, the infrastructure damage involved in metal theft led to the British Transport Police being instrumental in meeting us and setting up the task force. The damage was considerable and it was not just the theft of the metal but the on-costs, as the noble Lord said.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, speaking as a vice-president of the National Churches Trust and the Lincolnshire Churches Trust, I must say how much we appreciate what my noble friend has done in this regard. However, we are all a little apprehensive about 31 March. It is crucial that we do not lose the momentum that has been sustained over the past year. I should be grateful if my noble friend could give us some reassurance on that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have given the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the assurance that we will consider it, and I think I can go no further than that.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, everyone will welcome the recent decline in this dangerous theft, which does such damage to local businesses and communities. The Minister will be aware that this crime is driven primarily by world commodity prices and all experience shows that thieves respond very quickly to changes in those commodity prices. Given the recent decline in world commodity prices, can the Minister give any assessment of how far this recent decline is due to that and how far it is due to the work of the metal theft task force?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot really comment on the noble Lord’s analysis of market conditions in the capitalist market that may underline this matter. The truth is that we were all aware that a lot of illegitimate traffic was going on throughout the supply line of this industry. The British Metals Recycling Association wanted to be a party to making this a proper legitimate framework for a proper industry. We have that framework now and I am sure that noble Lords will support all that is being done to ensure that that is what happens.

Public Sector: Debt

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:17

Asked by

[Lord Wigley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest estimate of the United Kingdom’s public sector debt, and what was the comparable figure in May 2010.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the latest public sector finances statistical release set out that public sector net debt was £1,254.3 billion or 75.7% of GDP in December 2013, compared to £846.4 billion or 57.2% of GDP in May 2010.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that that is a serious deterioration in the level of debt, and that UK debt now stands higher as a proportion of GDP than does that of Spain? Do the Government accept that, at some point soon, they will have to start reducing that debt? In so doing, will he give an assurance that they will not continually place the burden on the weakest members of our community, who depend on public services and social benefits, but will, at the appropriate time in the economic cycle, raise taxes, so that those with the broadest shoulders start bearing some fair share of this gigantic problem?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government are determined to bear down on the level of public debt. Under current plans the debt will peak at 80% of GDP in 2015-16 and will then begin to fall. Whether the fiscal consolidation is dealt with entirely by cuts in expenditure or whether there will be a balance between further constraint on expenditure and additional tax increases, is, I suspect, one of the battle lines that will be drawn in campaigning for the general election.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, reducing the annual deficit is one thing; eliminating net public sector debt by 2018 is quite another. Can my noble friend give the House an assurance that in future, deficit reduction policies, including the capping of annually managed expenditure, will be pursued by the coalition Government only if protection is made available for low-income households?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, sadly, we are not going to abolish the debt by 2018, although I hope that we shall abolish the annual deficit by then. The Government have set out expenditure plans for 2015-16; how expenditure falls beyond that will, as I said, be the task of the next Government. The parties will set out their plans, and my party has already explained that it would expect further fiscal consolidation to take place, but that a proportion of that fiscal consolidation will need to be borne by the shoulders that are broadest.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

Is there a case for the Government to establish an education programme to distinguish between the deficit and the debt? Is it not misleading for them to focus only on the deficit, particularly when their actions are making the national debt increase by more than 60% compared with any other European country?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government are trying to get under control a disastrous fiscal situation that we inherited from the previous Government. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord is saying that we should cut expenditure more, but if he is, I would be grateful to hear his specific proposals.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that, although the deficit has been reduced by one third or so, extra borrowing is still increasing at an alarming rate? The Chancellor is therefore absolutely right to make it clear that his intention is to eliminate the deficit completely, if we are not to burden future generations with the terrible task of dealing with the borrowing and also incurring higher interest rate costs. Does my noble friend further agree that it is high time the Opposition recognised the fact that reducing the deficit is the only possible way forward?

[Lord Newby]

I do agree with my noble friend. I am not sure that it is widely understood that cutting the deficit, which we are doing, will still mean that this Government will have borrowed an extra half a trillion pounds during the course of this Parliament. The party opposite has so far come forward simply with plans to increase that additional borrowing further. That would simply not be credible.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, “the party opposite” is critical of the Government for the obvious reason that, if you run an economy with such abysmal rates of growth as this Government have done over the past three years, you find yourself unable to hit the target for the deficit that the Chancellor himself identified in 2010.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is an assiduous reader of publications by the IMF and will have seen that, within recent days, the IMF has upgraded its forecasts for growth to 2.4% next year and 2.2% the next year, which is higher than for France and Germany.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the time when the economy was clearly not growing at all but flatlining, the Government repeatedly said that it was due to the eurozone or the weather but nothing to do with the Government? Can the Minister please confirm that it is his view from the Front Bench that, if there is any upturn in the economy at all at the moment, it will be nothing to do with the Government?

[Lord Newby]

It is not a question of whether there is any upturn in the economy; there is a very significant upturn. Government policy ensured that, when we were facing very strenuous headwinds, the economy did better than it would otherwise have done, and it will do better in the upturn now as a result of a whole raft of policies that this Government are pursuing.

Justice: Non-custodial Sentences

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:23

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of non-custodial sentences on the safety of the public.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, those who commit serious and dangerous offences should expect to receive long custodial sentences and this Government have ensured that tough sentences are available. Less serious offenders can be effectively and safely punished in the community. However, we have amended the law so that sentences served in the community combine punishment with effective rehabilitation. Since 2010, those who break the law are more likely to go to prison, and to go to prison for longer.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

I find that very hard to believe. How can the Government claim to be tough on crime when a Ministry of Justice Answer in the other place revealed that in 2012, of 16,000 criminals convicted of rape, sexual assault, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm and robbery, all crimes characterised by violence, according to the government figures 9,600 of them—that is, 60%—walked free without even a custodial sentence and sometimes without even a tag, while nearly 40% of those convicted actually served less than 24 months in prison? These are serious crimes. How can people feel safe in their home or on the streets of Britain in the light of these statistics?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this Government take the view that the sentencing of a particular offence is best left to the individual judge, who has knowledge and appreciation of the particular facts surrounding the commission of an offence. There are guidelines and, as the noble Lord will be aware, recent sentencing guidelines on sexual offences provided by the Sentencing Council, an independent body. If he cares to read those sentencing offences guidelines, he will realise how lengthy the suggested sentences are. If, in a particular circumstance, a judge passes a sentence which is unduly lenient, of course the Attorney-General can take that unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal for review.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, while there is concern that those sentenced to a non-custodial alternative may reoffend, is it not right that the courts should send to prison those whose reoffending makes any other course unacceptable, and that those who are sent to prison should stay there no longer than is strictly necessary?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I speak as someone who sat as a recorder—a part-time judge—throughout the period of the previous Government, and deciding whether or not to send someone to prison is the most difficult task that we perform. Sometimes people have to be sent to prison; on other occasions, it is considered possible and sensible, in the long term, to provide them with the opportunity of rehabilitation within the community. This Government are committed to providing constructive things for people to do while they are being rehabilitated in the community, and I agree with my noble friend.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the progress of the pilots for sobriety schemes as alternatives to custodial sentences for alcohol-fuelled crime?

[Lord Faulks]

I believe that there will be an announcement shortly on that but I am unable to give the noble Baroness precise details at this moment. When information is available, I will write to her.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, given the risks to the public, highlighted by my noble friend’s supplementary question, and the potential difficulties in managing offenders whose risk category may change, why are the Government not properly piloting their controversial changes to the probation service, as urged by the most recent report of the Justice Select Committee? Is there not a real risk of the Lord Chancellor proceeding in haste and the community and victims of crime repenting at leisure?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the Government believe that it would not be desirable to introduce a sentencing reform in one part of the country but not another. To do so would risk postcode justice, with some offenders getting different sentences to others. Similarly, having competing services in any one area of the country is not a viable approach if we want to extend supervision to short-sentenced offenders. In every other respect we are carrying out extensive local testing of the reforms in no fewer than 14 probation trusts. The 21 CRCs—community rehabilitation companies—that we are creating will remain in public sector ownership until the conclusion of the competition. This gives us further opportunities to carry on testing and refine the system.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at Question Time. There is a very good rehabilitation scheme run by National Grid, which trains young first offenders who are becoming very valuable members of society because they have been given a way of earning a living in a respectable and efficient way to the benefit of us all. I think that he should be aware of this scheme, which was started by National Grid and is now supported by many other companies. Does he believe that this sort of rehabilitation continues to be valuable?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government consider it to be valuable, and it is our intention that a range of different requirements will be placed on those who are subject to supervision in the community. It is hoped that a number of suggestions, from both public and private providers, will assist in the rehabilitation revolution.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, rehabilitation in the community depends on well trained probation officers. Will the Minister tell the House whether there are any plans to insist on compulsory training of members of the private sector community rehabilitation companies that will be responsible for the supervision of medium and low-risk offenders in the community in future?

[Lord Faulks]

I know that the noble Lord takes a great interest, and has great expertise, in this subject, and I can assure him that that is very much the intention. It is intended to set up a form of probation college that will maintain standards and ensure that all those involved in the project have suitable experience.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that rehabilitation is not an event but a process. Will he say what other criteria the Government are using to assess the success of rehabilitation, other than non-offending?

[Lord Faulks]

Non-offending is clearly extremely important. One of the difficulties that the Government have identified is that those who receive sentences of 12 months or less have not been getting the support in the community that they should. This will change as a result of government initiatives. Other factors, such as obtaining employment and making sure that they have appropriate skills, are equally important for the long term.

Health: Confidential Patient Information

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:31

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the likely impact of proposed European Union legislation on their plans to sell confidential patient information to drug and insurance companies.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, while we have concerns about the EU proposals, there has been no cause to conduct an assessment of the sort suggested at this stage. The Government do not sell confidential patient information to companies. Drug and insurance companies can receive patient confidential information only where they have a legal gateway, either consent of the patient or some form of statutory authority. In these circumstances the cost of providing information may be recovered, but it is not sold.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, clearly there is great advantage in using patient research in large-scale research projects. However, can the noble Earl assure the House that patient confidentiality can be assured? Also, is it right that projects such as the UK Biobank could be put in jeopardy were the proposed European legislation to be enacted in its current draft form?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, under the 2012 Act, the Health and Social Care Information Centre cannot release data that could be used to identify an individual without a legal basis to do so. As a result, there are strict controls about how such information is released. As regards the UK Biobank, the noble Lord is right to be concerned because the proposed text from the so-called LIBE committee would rule out the work of the UK Biobank, in that it would need explicit and time-limited consent for any research project that it undertook, instead of being able to support a range of research purposes, as it now can, using its existing consenting mechanism. So there is cause for concern if this text is adopted, but that is not yet clear.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, many noble Lords will have received recently a leaflet through their letter box, saying that their records are going to be made available unless they opt out. The means of opting out is to contact your GP. First, has anyone noticed how difficult it is to contact your GP in some circumstances? Secondly, would it have been beyond the wit of the department to include a simple, tick-box form for people to use? Does the absence of such a simple process lead us to conclude that the Government do not actually want people to opt out of making their records available?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, everybody in the country has a right to object to their data being shared. Those objections will always be respected. A practical way had to be found to enable that process to happen, and we believe that it is not unreasonable to expect a patient to have a conversation with their GP. I will, however, take the noble Baroness’s suggestions on board and feed them in.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)]

Does my noble friend agree that while patients can object to having their records sent, they cannot, in fact, legally prevent the GP sending those records to the central repository? It is at that point that the discussion as to whether those records should be sold on and used by pharmaceutical companies and others is important. Does he agree that it is important that companies carrying out research into new drugs and compounds can access patient records, because they are an important dataset for making sure that we have better healthcare for our people?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is correct. The UK has a unique advantage in being able to link patients’ data records for the purposes of research and for effective healthcare commissioning. It would be extremely concerning if European law prevented that. I believe and hope that patients will be encouraged that there will be no abuse of identifiable information. The controls around this are very strict and, in the main, only anonymised data are required for research purposes.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Can the Minister explain if there are circumstances in which personal confidential data might be used and analysed, such as in a public health emergency, and what the safeguards are surrounding that access?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there are circumstances in which potentially identifiable data can be released, but they are very severely circumscribed. A public health emergency is one, but Section 251 of the National Health Service Act 2006 could also allow identifiable information to be shared for specific purposes. However, the controls around that are extremely strict and the only people who can take that decision are the Secretary of State and the Health Research Authority—and then only after expert advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, some patients do not understand the implications and possible effects of the proposed EU legislation. What steps are being considered to ensure that those patients have full understanding?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, until we are clear about the text that is agreed at European level, it is difficult to issue public advice on what the effect of that proposed measure would be. The text is still being argued over. While my noble friend is absolutely right that a public information exercise would be advisable once we are aware, we are not at that point yet.

Business of the House

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:38

Moved by

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Harrison and Lord Rooker set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.

Motion agreed.

International Trade

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:38

Moved by

[Lord Harrison]

That this House takes note of the role of international trade in increasing employment and economic growth.

[Lord Harrison (Lab)]

My Lords,

“all the evidence is that when you open up markets people flourish, businesses grow and you create jobs”.

Thus the former Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Green, put it to a recent meeting of the Trade Out of Poverty group. International trade is central to all our lives, bringing jobs, growth and prosperity to the developed and developing world alike. I want to explore how well Britain is doing in promoting international trade, how well it is rebalancing its economy to emphasise exports—especially manufacturing—and how well we as parliamentarians are doing in holding to account UK, European Union and world decision-makers in doing the big trade deals. It is my belief that for too long politicians have neglected international trade as a job winner and left it on the parliamentary shelf.

How well is the United Kingdom doing? According to the ONS, the UK’s trade deficit on goods and services was some £2.6 billion in October 2013, while our deficit on goods rose to £29.5 billion in the three months to October last year. Eurostat identifies Germany as having the largest trade surplus, while Britain contests France, Greece and Spain for bottom place at minus €55 billion.

The former government adviser Sir Alan Rudge points out that the troubling balance of payments deficit in recent years has largely been financed by the sale of UK debt and assets, not by increasing exports and trade. In contrast, says Sir Alan, small businesses, the real engines of growth and trade, are frustrated by a Government who still have not solved the scandal of late payment of commercial debt or successfully dealt with the drought of investment finance for small businesses. This was evidenced today by the Bank of England’s lukewarm assessment of the UK’s plethora of indifferent schemes for small businesses.

The Prime Minister rightly vaunts the benefits of the purposed transatlantic deal between the European Union and the USA. It could indeed add £10 billion to the British economy, but such aspirations require the back-up of hard work and planned follow-up. I ask the Minister why our embassy in Washington has part sponsored a state-by-state study of the effect of TTIP on US jobs, but Ministers in the UK have yet to sponsor any such similar sectoral assessment for the United Kingdom, from which we might develop a reasoned industrial strategy.

I would be grateful for an update on the EU-US TTIP negotiations, and I ask the Minister to assure us that any potential adverse effects on developing countries will be mitigated. However, President Obama commented that he would have “very little appetite” for a deal with the United Kingdom alone. That brings me to the question of why, oh why, at this time when we are trying to secure this TTIP deal, we are giving the impression that we want to absent ourselves from the European Union, which is the principal negotiator.

We also need hard work on improving the UK’s grasp of foreign languages, instead of lazily relying on English as the world’s lingua franca. This is of the essence. The British Chambers of Commerce has remarked that knowledge gaps and language skills hold back British exporters. A rebalancing of the economy requires expansion of language acquisition in our schools, colleges and businesses. However, we should also mobilise the many pools of language expertise found among our British citizens, especially among communities of recent immigrants. How refreshing it would be if the Government coupled their insistence on immigrants speaking English with a pledge to arm each current UK citizen with the gift of fluency in one other language. In our engagement with the European Union and others, we have had too much British bluster and too little British barter, too much using the English language as a battering ram and too little buttering-up of trade partners in their own tongues.

Last week, the Commons Public Accounts Committee published a report which was critical of UK support for exporters overseas, and also highlighted the failure of UKTI and the FCO to work effectively together. There is also the failure of the Chancellor’s ambition to double the value of UK exports to £1 trillion by 2020, which was a realistic goal in the 2012 budget, and the failure of UK trade to match that of our EU partners, especially Germany, which is the export champion of Europe. How does the Minister respond to the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee?

Does the noble Lord recognise, and how does he respond to, the changing trade patterns? I remember the vice-president of eBay addressing the WTO Parliamentary Assembly and underlining the importance of having secure WTO rules, whatever the medium of trade—in his case, of course, eBay. A second contributor to that debate reminded us of the increasing use of mobile phones for effecting trade. We have to change with the changing patterns and times.

I also ask the Minister to reflect on the Commonwealth and the CHOGM in Sri Lanka last November. What does he believe can be done through the Commonwealth? Does it have a responsible role in promoting intelligent trade? Indeed, how does he respond to the idea of a Commonwealth trade and investment facility?

I now turn to how well we, as parliamentarians, perform oversight of international trade deals done in our name here in the United Kingdom, in the Commonwealth or in the European Union—which is charged with agreeing the forthcoming TTIP deal with the United States under European Union law—or, indeed, through the World Trade Organisation, where I was until recently the Westminster parliamentary delegate in the run-up to Bali. Parliamentary oversight in the United Kingdom is woeful. We spiritedly examine the Government’s domestic economic policies but often neglect to place under the same forensic microscope their trade policies.

Perhaps the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Livingston, to whom I offer a very warm welcome, will acknowledge that trade scrutiny in Parliament is indeed too perfunctory. Would he not welcome being held to closer account by parliamentarians? The last time we had such a debate in the House of Lords was back in 2012, when my noble friend Lady Liddell led an important report. I am told that the only debate held hitherto in the House of Commons on the important EU-US trade negotiations was brought by John Healey MP, who runs the all-party group on TTIP. However, we need to have more than just that.

The Lords, of course, has a Select Committee system, which does very well. When I became chair of your Lordships’ European Union Sub-Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs, as well as trade, in 2010, we were entrusted with clearing trade deals such as the Korea-EU accord on the automotive industry. Perhaps that is why we have heard some good news recently on that front. The newly installed EU Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, came before my committee. We took evidence from him on the new and important EU trade policy communication, Trade, Growth and World Affairs, which promotes a more assertive trade policy being developed by the European Union. However, that was the limit of our parliamentary investigation.

On that point, how does the Minister intend to report to Parliament on the annual EU Trade and Investment Barriers Report, which I am sure his officials have told him about, and the ambition in the 2011 March report to have made progress in extending the opening of government procurement markets and developing successful dispute settlement arrangements for the future? The EU foreign policy committee, led by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, is currently scrutinising the forthcoming EU-US trade deal and it interviewed Karel De Gucht on 13 November last year. Perhaps the Minister can also tell us about either meetings that he may have had with Karel De Gucht or ones that he proposes to have with him in the future.

For 18 months I was the UK delegate to the WTO Parliamentary Assembly meetings, which included my co-chairing a meeting in Brussels with the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament—the so-called INTA—on which sit distinguished British MEPs who are now co-legislators on these important international trade deals. What conversations has the Minister had, or what conversations does he propose to have, with British MEPs to get a better and more thorough understanding of what the European Union and European Parliament will be doing in this area? Regrettably, the WTO parliamentarians were excluded from the final successful assembly concluding the Bali accord unless they were designated as part of the national delegation. That offer was denied me, much to my regret.

Perhaps I may conclude on the successful Bali accord and ask the Minister to report on its outcome. Does he understand that, increasingly, because of the difficulty with the Doha round and its completion, there have sprung up many more bilateral, plurilateral and even bi-regional accords such as the EU-US deal? They are proliferating in the absence of the giant multilateral deal that is aspired to in the Doha round. Do the Government believe that such partial deals undermine the principle of multilateralism, or are they stepping stones on the way to achieving multilateralism which, in the end, must be the favoured way of going?

On Bali implementation, will the Minister report on what discussions government departments have had and what budget provisions are being made to support the implementation of the Bali trade facilitation deal? Will he also report on the continuing economic partnership agreements that are being developed with the European Union and African states and whether we will mitigate any adverse affects that may arise as the deadline of 1 October 2014 comes into sight?

The point I have tried to make is that trade is hugely important. We, the Government and parliamentarians must take it seriously. We must find the road down which we can go to improve the understanding and transparency of trade deals, which have so much influence on our lives and from which those to whom we report will benefit if we get them right. I look forward to a debate in which these matters can be expressed and to the response of the Minister to the questions I have put. If he is unable to respond to everything, I hope he will write to me later. It is an important debate and I hope that we will treat it seriously.

11:53

[Lord Marland (Con)]

My Lords, I was flattered and surprised to receive a generous letter from the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, asking me to speak in this debate. I regret that I shall not be able to stay until the end—I have written to the noble Lord to inform him—because I have not been able to reschedule some of my activities. This will be a terrific debate. It is a very important debate, as the noble Lord has mentioned, and I congratulate him on securing it. I also understand that I am clearly the warm-up act for the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and I hope that he will say nice rather than nasty things afterwards. He is a very good tennis companion, but not necessarily a good debating companion on the other side of the Chamber.

When we look at the exam question that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has set, the answer is, “Yes, of course”. I have just finished being for two and a half years the Prime Minister’s trade envoy and chairman of his business ambassadors. Throughout that time I have had the great pleasure of working with parliamentarians, including the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who is unique in her tireless work in the Middle East, and with trade envoys who are appointed from all sides of the House. They give of their free time to support the trade initiative. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, who was an unpaid Minister. It has been a pleasure to work with them all, trying to sort out the problems we inherited and galvanising the United Kingdom back into what it was: a great trading nation.

The Prime Minister has rightly put trade at the centre of our economic recovery and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, it is important, and incumbent on us all, to put our shoulders to the wheel to make sure that that happens. But it has been a significant challenge because businesses and Government had been focusing their activities almost entirely on Europe and the internal market. We had been a prosperous country for the past 15 to 20 years and orders were easy to secure both within our own market and overseas. Moreover, the Government themselves had failed to focus on the emerging markets of the world, instead maintaining strong relationships with those countries that had been our friends for ever. I think that the Government had become complacent about their relationships. Not only has there been a huge overhaul of UKTI and its focus, which was needed, but also an effort to tackle the horrendous fact, in my view, that 60% of small and medium-sized enterprises export only if someone comes and knocks on their door, and 60% of SMEs do not export at all. For a trading nation, those are extraordinary statistics. Repositioning, regalvanising and leading the way have all been very important.

It is easy to say, “The Government should be doing this and should be doing that”, but from my experience since I started my first business in 1982, which went on to become a global international insurance broker, the last people we wanted working with us were Government. They were slow and pedestrian, they taxed us, and they took too long to make decisions. As business people we want to be able to trade on our own. What we do want, when we get into sticky situations, is for the Government to intervene at a senior level and to ease the path for us. There are two or three things that the Government need to do in terms of providing access to markets. We should not expect Government to be the commercial, deal-doing arm of business, but we should expect them to have access at senior levels and to understand the routes to market: knowing who are the reliable partners in market that British businesses can deal with and understanding the rules and regulations within country so that businesses know about and recognise the problems they may face when going to market.

The frustration that I found as a trade envoy and chairman of the business ambassadors was that we could take the horses or businesses to water, but we could not make those horses or businesses drink. We would offer endless opportunities, but getting them to the table was difficult. That is changing, but it is an area where progress still needs to be made. To illustrate the degree of change, when I first went to Angola—I was almost the first government Minister ever to visit the country—I took five businesses with me. The last time I visited, I took 30, and deals are now being done with that country. But we should be taking 60 or even 90 businesses because today Angola is per capita the wealthiest nation in Africa. The oil industry is expanding enormously and there are going to be huge infrastructure changes. The other frustration is: why are we three years behind the Chinese and the Koreans in getting into Angola? It is because businesses have not looked at the potential initiatives there.

The most important thing from the point of view of British business and the Government is that we spend a lot of our time criticising ourselves and this nation but the truth is that in every country I visited we were in the top three countries in the world that that country would want to deal with. That is an extraordinary position to be in. It comes down to three or four things. First, business here is underpinned by the rule of law and we should compliment ourselves on that. The rule of law is fundamental to business practices and we are the leading exponents of it.

Secondly, we are transparent in the way that we do our business. I was very concerned about the Bribery Act when it came through but I now recognise it to be a very important and differentiating plank for British businesses when negotiating in the world. Now we see Governments being overturned for being corrupt by their people at the drop of a Twitter—or whatever it is; I am not going to ask my noble friend Lord Cormack because he does not know either—or the push of a button because they are not transparent. That sets us apart from the rest.

Thirdly, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Harrison: the reason people want to do business with the UK is that we speak English, which is the desired language of all nations now in terms of commerce. Fourthly, London is a place that everyone wants to come to. I do not say this without humility but for this short moment in our lifetime London is the centre of the world to do trade. That makes it a fantastic place for us to do business.

Finally—and this may surprise noble Lords—we have an enormous bandwidth of skills. We lead the world in e-commerce, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has led the world in e-commerce. We lead the world in high-tech. We lead the world in low-tech. Our medical capability is the envy of the world. Most importantly, our education system is the envy of the world. That is the thing that everyone wants to buy because we have a very strong education system and we have this ability to transfer skills.

Therefore, the Minister takes on a momentum that is beginning to happen. I support him and any initiatives that he sets about involving Members of this House which continue putting Britain on track to being what we have always been: a significant trading nation with a strong position in the world.

12:03

[Lord Giddens (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison on having initiated this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marland, and to see him back here, in such ebullient form as always, even if he is going to desert us half way through the proceedings.

I have been a practising social scientist for several decades. Over that time, a principle of working has always done very well for me. That principle is—this might be the first time this word has ever been uttered in the House of Lords—“think dialectically”; that is, do not think that the future will be like the past; the future will often be the opposite of the past. There are transition points in history when the world starts to look very different. I feel that we are at such a transition point in the world economy today.

Therefore, when people go with the easy assumption that this will be the Asian century, I do not think that is necessarily true at all. The assumption that there will be an inevitable and significant decline in the West is not necessarily true either. The same thing applies to the process of deindustrialisation, which has perhaps been the dominant feature of the western economies for the past 30 years or so and which has transformed them essentially into heavily service-based economies. Although most observers see this as a continuing process, I do not think it will be or that deindustrialisation is a trend which will simply run and run.

I would like noble Lords participating in this debate who are interested in how we can produce a resurgence of global trade in this country to take very seriously the discussion about reshoring which is going on in the United States and several other advanced industrial countries around the world. Reshoring, which I have mentioned in a previous debate in your Lordships’ House, is the opposite of offshoring. It is the idea that industry will come back to the advanced economies and that there will be processes of reindustrialisation. It is very important that the UK is at the forefront of such processes should they indeed take place. We can all see that the “effort bargain” that has dominated the world economy over the past three decades can no longer be sustained. This now pivots on the role of China. Over that period there has been a kind of odd coupling between the United States and China, and to some extent Europe and China, based on the fact that the Chinese produce manufactured goods for the United States and the industrial economies. The United States cannot afford to pay for those goods so it has to borrow, and the situation is much the same for Europe. How does the United States borrow? It borrows from the Chinese, who invest in American bonds. It is surely the case that we have come to the end of that relationship now. It is also the case that China will move back much more towards domestic demand rather than simply exporting. Wages have also gone up significantly in the manufacturing centres in China.

When we look to our trading relationship in the future, we should not suppose that it will just depend on a continuing increase in the export of services. Instead, we should be back making things, which is crucial for the future. There is a kind of convergence between what is happening in the world economy and the emergence of digital production. Reference was made to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. It is a matter of the expansion of not just the digital world but digital production in the form of 3D printing and things well beyond that now. These are massive processes of change. With these localised forms of production many things that used to be made thousands of miles away can now be—and in the future will be—made locally.

When we think about the resurgence of UK trade it is a mistake just to make the simplistic assumption that we should turn our eyes to the east or, if you like, that the main driving force should be how to be nicer to China. For that reason, I would like to expand on the comments made by my noble friend Lord Harrison about the significance of the free trade system now under discussion between the United States and the European Union. I see this as a kind of core of the possible pivot of change in the global world economy. It could be a crucial source of transformation for the whole range of industrial countries involved. Looking at the potential impact of the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, to give it its full name—it is usually called TAFTA, which is the term that I shall use because it refers to an area—you could say that it might be the most important source of job creation and wealth creation for western economies for many years.

There are some disputes among academics about the implications of TAFTA for GDP, but I have looked at the Commission’s estimates in some detail and think that they are pretty reliable. The Commission’s estimate is that TAFTA will yield €120 billion for the EU states and €130 billion for the United States. I remind noble Lords that trade is not a zero-sum game. It does not follow that a consolidated western trading relationship will have adverse consequences for the developing world. Actually, it is the contrary: according to the Commission’s estimates, €100 billion extra GDP will be generated for the developing world as a result of this process. The implications are huge.

As the noble Lord has hinted, we know that there are significant problems in establishing the free trade agreement; there are problems getting it through Congress; there are problems at a state level in the US; and there are problems within the European Union—for example, at least some French thinkers and politicians are not as enamoured of free trade as other parts of the European Union and have made perhaps not terribly helpful comments on the process. Nevertheless, I think that there is a strong will in the United States to push it through—President Obama has made it a legacy issue for himself—and there is also a strong will in Europe.

The free trade deal has been widely criticised from the left. It is said that it will give more power to footloose corporations and have negative environmental consequences. These criticisms are strongly misplaced and quite wrong. For example, increasing collaboration between the United States and the European Union is likely to be the only way of having a significant impact on tax loopholes, eliminating tax havens and creating greater corporate responsibility. I think that the FTA will bring greater corporate responsibility, not less. There is a sticking point around the precautionary principle environmentally, but I think that the precautionary principle is not a principle and that Europe should be encouraged to abandon it. Not taking a risk is itself a risk; therefore I see a fruitful possible source of collaboration here, too.

I have three brief questions for the Minister. What is his assessment of the progress of TAFTA so far and have the Government made a clear assessment? Secondly, do the Government accept the Commission’s estimate of GDP growth and job creation for the UK and, if not, why not, because it seems to me quite valid? Thirdly, to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, do the Government accept that were the UK to leave the EU in the relatively near future its chances of inclusion would be slim to non-existent?

12:13

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I want to concentrate my remarks in this debate on the agricultural and food sectors. I should begin by declaring an interest as a co-owner of Vignobles Temperley, our family vineyard, which makes and exports wine.

I was moved to speak in this debate because, with food production and the trade in agricultural products, there are two very different and often conflicting goals. One is to maximise trade and, in that case, big is certainly successful. The other is to ensure that the people of the world are properly nourished. In his excellent introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, spoke of the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of trade. At national, European and international level, there is a total vacuum when it comes to reconciling these two, very different goals.

Here in the UK, the food industry is very important. It employs 2 million people and has a turnover in excess of £70 billion. Farming—primary production—employs around half a million people but is just 0.7% of GDP. However, it supplies 60% of the country’s food needs. Of course, our farmers share many of the same issues with farmers throughout the world, whether that is unpredictable weather, difficulty accessing capital investment, cutting-edge science or markets without middle men taking so much of the profits, or a younger generation who do not see agriculture or horticulture as their ambition of choice. Consumers throughout the world share a surprising number of problems in common, too. Although there are enough calories produced throughout the world to meet the population’s needs, they are incredibly unevenly distributed. Noble Lords will know that roughly 1 billion people in the world are malnourished, and many severely, and about 1 billion people are obese, and some severely. Just this month, the Overseas Development Institute report highlighted the fact that since 1980 the incidence of obesity has almost quadrupled. Shockingly, almost one in three people worldwide is now considered obese.

The trade in agricultural products is massive but many of the poorest people in the world are farmers. One part of the problem is that the transnational corporations—the TNCs—that deal in agricultural products are among the world’s largest traders. The big four—known as ABCD—have an annual turnover bigger than some countries but very limited accountability. Of those big four, two are still private companies so especially unaccountable. They will be familiar names to many noble Lords. Archer Daniels Midland has a turnover of about $80 billion. All four have a lot in common but Bunge Ltd is a good example: it operates in 40 countries with about 35,000 employees. The point is that it buys, sells, stores and transports so much of the world’s foodstuffs, whether oilseeds or grains. It processes oilseeds to make protein meal for animal feed and edible oil products for commercial and consumers. These companies are also involved in producing sugar and ethanol. They are involved in food, fuel and often fertilizer production, too—so they are involved in the whole chain. “C” stands for Cargill, which last year had a turnover of $136.7 billion, and “D” is Louis Dreyfus, whose annual gross turnover exceeded $120 billion. Between them, these companies are said to control as much as 90% of the global grain trade. Other players are emerging in the market, such as Olam, Sinar Mas and Wilmar. Their presence varies from nuts in Africa to palm oil in Indonesia, but they are busy diversifying, too.

A couple of years ago, the Oxford Farming Conference commissioned a study on power in agriculture, which said:

“Consolidation of TNCs has seen some shifting of the focus of power, away from governments/supranational bodies towards corporate businesses. This could be a source of concern for farmers”.

I contend that that is a pretty mild comment. It continued:

“However the exercise of this power isn’t limitless and can be constrained by policy”.

My first question to the Minister is: how can it be constrained? What can the UK Government do to address this? Clearly, there is a role for BIS, Defra and DfID working together in this area of policy. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister just what forum there is for this sort of issue to be addressed.

Leaving a vacuum means that the ABCDs of this world determine where money in agriculture is invested, where agricultural production is located, where the produce is shipped and how the world’s population shares—or fails to share—the food produced. As consumers, we depend on a food chain that we neither understand nor have any power over. This concentration of power is not building a resilient food system—I could have spoken in the next debate—it is not fair on producers, and it is certainly producing appalling outcomes in terms of nourishing the world’s population, as I have outlined, whether obese or malnourished. We need to address these issues.

The food production system is highly vulnerable to weather—we have seen many examples of that this year—and to lack of natural resources, such as scarce water. We need to think about this and create other models of greater accountability to create a balance between a healthy trade that is bringing wealth to producers and their communities and the need of the world for food and resources.

There are models out there. I shall mention one today. There was a sustained fall in commodity prices in the second half of the 20th century, in which many prices halved, and the Fairtrade Foundation was born from that unhappy state of affairs. This year, it has been going in the UK for 20 years. It now has a turnover here of £1.5 billion, so it cannot be said to be a small, niche thing anymore. It has connected consumers meaningfully to producers in the developing world. I welcome the Government’s support for it. DfID Ministers have recently been active in their support for the importance of Fairtrade. Fairtrade farmers have explained to us that one of the problems that multinationals produce for them is that they may buy large volumes one year but not the next, when they need stability for investment. Price volatility is a massive challenge. For example, the price of coffee virtually halved between 2011 and 2013. Price volatility is perhaps the biggest enemy of the smallholder farmer. Fairtrade tends to balance out these issues and make life much easier for the investment we need for future food production if we are to be sure of a food supply.

Finally, I ask the Minister about the bilateral EU trade agreements that have rather taken the place of the failed WTO agreements. Decades of policies weakened small producers in developing countries, and at the moment there is not much in bilateral agreements about poverty reduction. There needs to be some concentration on the content of trade agreements so that the poorest people in those countries, who are often the people producing the goods that we will eat, are protected. There is a reconcilable conflict, but as long as there is a vacuum of governance in this area it will not be reconciled.

12:22

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for initiating this important debate. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of a small bank and as part-owner and director of a small consultancy doing business in many countries, as in the register of interests.

The UK is dependent on international trade, which is why we have pretty much always supported free trade in a largely protectionist world. In no industry has free trade served us better than in financial services. Of course, within the EU, we have from time to time had difficulty in persuading our fellow members that free trade in financial services is a good thing, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, pointed out, coming as they do from a more protectionist culture, particularly where agriculture is concerned.

For all that, one of our main global exporting industries is financial services, which has come in for a lot of criticism, some justified and some extreme. We need to help that industry to overcome its failures, not to shackle it so that it cannot deliver economically for the UK. The financial services sector employs between 1.5 million and 2 million people, many, but by no means all, in London. The contribution to GDP is well over 10% and the tax contribution is more than 12% of total tax receipts, so there is no doubt about the importance of financial services.

That is not to say that we do not need to build up other industries; of course we do. Manufacturing has seen a resurgence in the high-tech and high-productivity end of the industry and, of course, our software design and cultural exports have been hugely successful. However, none of these sectors is mutually exclusive. Indeed, a buoyant financial services industry, if working properly, helps other businesses to be even more successful, with innovative ways of providing financial liquidity and risk reduction. I know from my own experience that one of the greatest headaches in exporting is the foreign exchange risk, which can only be reduced with the help of a friendly banker.

As we all know, banking has been through a torrid time caused by the illegal, unethical and self-serving actions of some banks and bankers. The reasons for this, apart from human nature, have been examined in great detail, not least by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Many proposals have been put forward to ensure that this catastrophe does not happen again. Hopefully, we are not making the same mistake that we have made many times previously, of regulating now to stop the transgressions of the past. It has been said that our banking sector is too big for our economy. That is only true if we make the absurd assumption that all banks operating in the UK are seeking business in the UK, and many do not, and that they are a risk to the UK taxpayer in case of their failure, which many are not. In any case, the changes to banking supervision that we have introduced make that even less likely.

However, the UK financial services sector is a fragile industry. Because of the employment it brings and the tax receipts it generates, many other countries would like to relocate the City of London to their city. We see this in the strong hints coming from the European Commission that it wants euro-denominated transactions to be located in the eurozone. Also, only this week, Reto Francioni of Deutsche Börse Frankfurt commented about Germany:

“Constituting the largest economy in Europe, Germany should also host the best financial centre in Europe”.

That is not a fanciful proposal. We have seen it happen before, when financial futures trading in German bonds was successfully moved from London to Frankfurt after a concerted effort by the German Government and Deutsche Börse.

What makes London successful in financial services, and how do we protect the advantages we have? In practical terms, because financial services and risk reduction are so specialised, the world will only ever need three global financial centres, each in overlapping time zones: New York, London—hopefully—and one in the Far East, where the battle continues to decide whether Hong Kong, Singapore or Shanghai will emerge dominant. We have a major advantage in London over our European neighbours, in that we have a large population used to working in financial services and, of course, having as their first language English, thanks to the Americans the language of finance.

It has been said that the assets of a bank go “up and down in the elevator”; it is an American expression. It is the people who work in financial services who make the industry a success or a failure. They come predominantly from the home market, but we need to ensure that the UK is welcoming to other nationalities coming here to build our industries. We need to be open to skilled people coming to live and work here, both for their talent in generating and closing deals and for their local knowledge of the overseas markets our financial services companies need to operate in. We need to continue to be welcoming to the already successful but also to the soon-to-be-successful, who will learn and work in London. That means getting our personal tax regime competitive on an international level and, because of the US dominance in these markets, coming to an agreement on personal taxes with the USA, the federal tax regulations of which work aggressively against employing Americans internationally, and against foreign companies doing business with Americans. We and the European Union are far too complacent about the extra-territorial reach of the US tax regime.

However, financial services do not just need highly paid, international employees at the top. They could not function without the skilled staff who analyse, process, record, ensure compliance and take on the multitude of often routine functions that are needed to support the income generators and deal-doers. In short, we need a highly educated, well housed and well motivated labour force. That is why our reforms in education and housing are so important. However, it is the regulation of financial services which is the biggest challenge. There is always a desire to regulate to a point where any risk banks take is minimised, supposedly to the benefit of the consumer and the taxpayer, but there is a balance to be struck. Banks only make money by taking risk and it is up to the shareholders, in the first instance, to decide the acceptable level of risk, although, as we have seen, this does not always work as shareholders do not have enough real-time information to control their investment. This is where the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority come in, providing hands-on, forward-looking supervision.

I think we have now got the level of supervision about right in the UK. What is more worrying is the seeming intention of the EU Commission to micromanage the banks operating in the eurozone, with the inevitable impact on London. We have to get the regulation of financial services right, as it is only because the market is well regulated and safe that many overseas clients do business in London at all.

There is also a problem where capital is concerned. If banks are required to hold too much capital in low-risk, low-earning assets, this will certainly reduce the risk of bank failures but they will also be unable to make an acceptable return on capital and so be unable to raise more capital. Getting our regulation and capital requirements out of line with the rest of the world would not be a problem if the financial services industry were not able quite easily to move its “elevator assets” to another more welcoming or just more lightly regulated location.

We have a very successful exporting industry in the UK, one that employs a large number of people, makes good profits, pays a lot of tax and has potential for even greater growth. It has had catastrophic failures, caused by problems in its culture of personal reward, perhaps, and certainly by its need to produce an unrealistic return on shareholder funds. The then regulator could not prevent such failures but, I hope, the new regulator will be able to help the financial services industry avoid them in the future.

I believe that the regulatory problems have been addressed and I hope that the cultural attitudes are changing. The industry is a vital export earner and one that we should nurture and encourage. We must not sleepwalk into allowing other countries to take one of our most successful industries, to the detriment of the many people and companies in the UK that depend on the financial sector.

12:32

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison on initiating this debate. International banking is definitely not my territory, but I decided I would join in because of my involvement with social enterprises, co-operatives and the social economy—indeed, I attended a conference in Strasbourg last week. I need to inform the House that I am the founding chair and now patron of Social Enterprise UK and a supporter of the Social Economy Alliance. I am an ambassador for Sporta, the trade association for the social enterprise trust, providing leisure and sport services in the UK, and I work from time to time for Social Business International. All these interests are in the register. I am also the founder and honorary secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Social Enterprise Group.

As the Minister will know, social enterprises, co-operatives and mutuals are businesses which trade to make a surplus, just like any other business. There are some 65,000 to 70,000 social enterprises in the UK. It is what they do with those profits or surpluses that make them social businesses; that and their governance and social mission, which express themselves in many ways, including community and environmental interests, job creation and support for people with disabilities. Hackney Community Transport, which has bid in the commercial market for red bus routes in London, is one example. Its profits go into supplying transport for the disabled and local communities, creating jobs and apprenticeships. It is a good example of a social enterprise.

The context in which this debate is important for social businesses has already been recognised by this Government. In recent times the British Council, for example, has made social enterprises and support for social entrepreneurs a key plank in its work. So when the Prime Minister recently led a large trade delegation to China the chief executive of Social Enterprise UK, Peter Holbrook, was part of that delegation. Throughout this autumn and winter the British Council has been running seminars and training workshops in China and Hong Kong. I take this opportunity to commend the British Council for its programme in support of social entrepreneurship, which is running not just in Europe but in nine countries in east Asia—China, Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. It has trained thousands of social entrepreneurs so far.

There is no doubt that the UK is globally seen as the most advanced. We lead the world, for example, in developing social investment products, with Big Society Capital, Big Issue Invest, Bridges Ventures and the Charities Aid Foundation. They are all developing investment opportunities that exist to help to promote social enterprises and bring together social entrepreneurs and the investment that they need to grow those businesses. My Government invested a great deal in putting through legislation, creating community interest companies, with cross-party support, and creating the circumstances for health spin-outs and social enterprises, which has been followed through by this Government. Indeed, we all supported the social value Act, more recently, which gave more social entrepreneurs the opportunity to bid and tender for public service contracts.

Why is this important for the debate that we are having today? I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Marland, might have mentioned the promotion of social enterprise when he listed businesses of which he thought the UK could be particularly proud, because this is definitely one of those sectors.

I have mentioned already China and south-east Asia. I now turn to Europe and social enterprise, because last week in Strasbourg there was a refreshing mix of policy-makers, senior politicians, front-line social enterprises, academics, public sector representatives, and social entrepreneurs, including commissioners and Members of the European Parliament, from across Europe, to reflect on the progress and next steps in developing a more social economy in Europe. The UK’s social enterprise sector was well represented, I am pleased to say, with the likes of Social Enterprise UK, Hackney Community Transport, Fusion21, Social Adventures, the British Council, the co-operatives, UnLtd, E3M, and many others, speaking and learning from the diverse mix of policy and practice that was on show. Indeed, I went there myself. The declaration that came out of that conference, which I shall refer to in a moment, was led by Jonathan Bland, who used to be chief executive of Social Enterprise UK. It was a recognition of the great expertise in this country in this field.

We learnt at that conference the difficulties faced in the social investment market here in the UK, which we are familiar with, and we shared it with our counterparts across Europe. We learnt of the European Commission’s interest in social impact bonds and the social stock exchanges, which we have been discussing and pioneering in this country for several years. That demonstrated how enthusiasm for more social investment models is growing inside the institutions of the European Union. We discussed state aid reforms, which are under way, and some of the rules that are emerging, which may free up the ability of national Governments and others to support access to finance for social enterprise.

Emerging from this event was the Strasbourg declaration. I do not intend to read out two pages of the declaration, noble Lords will be pleased to know. Surprisingly, it was not completely written in Eurospeak; it is an accessible document, which recognises the contribution that social enterprise is making to Europe as a vehicle for social and economic cohesion and to help to build a pluralistic and resilient social market economy. Acting in the general interest, social enterprises create jobs and provide innovative products and services, promoting a more sustainable economy; they are based on the values of solidarity and empowerment to create opportunities and hope for the future. They offer a model for 21st-century businesses that balance finance, social, cultural and environmental needs. Social entrepreneurs need to be seen as agents of change, as individuals and groups who are passionate about improving the lives of the communities in which they exist.

Ten recommendations came out of the declaration, but I shall point to just one or two. The European work on support for social enterprises has started already—with the social business initiative, through the Commission, and with the support of the various committees in the Parliament. However, it has to be said that that has been resourced by what we might describe as half a person in a cupboard, and by a lot of political support from across all the political parties.

The initiative was led by Commissioner Barnier. Three other Commissioners from various countries across Europe and from different political parties have also been involved; they were on the platform. Five chairs and vice-chairs of European Parliament committees were also there; again, that representation was cross-party. I emphasise that, because we in the UK have been proud of the cross-party support for social businesses and social enterprise, and I am glad to say that that seems to be translating itself into the European experience.

The declaration includes recommendations that,

“the next European Commission (with a dedicated inter-service structure) and the next European Parliament must take full ownership and deliver on”,

lots of the suggestions that were made about how to support social enterprise, and that the,

“European institutions and Member States should reinforce the role of social enterprises in structural reforms to exit the crisis, notably where the social economy is less developed”.

It also says:

“Public and private players must develop a full range of suitable financial instruments and intermediaries that support social enterprises throughout their life-cycle”.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am asking him to ensure that the British Government support the declaration. They should support this initiative, and because we are the leaders in the field, we should help it to happen.

12:41

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I congratulate, as she did, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on securing this debate. There seems to be a general, if qualified, consensus among the commentariat that international trade does promote both employment and growth, both in exporting and in importing countries.

However, this consensus is not uncontested. In a 1999 paper, Warzynski and Westergård-Nielsen comment:

“International trade and outsourcing are often blamed for destroying jobs”,

and the current position of China serves as an example of the problems that imperfect international trade arrangements might generate. As Irwin Stelzer wrote in the Sunday Times four days ago,

“China, running its largest trade surplus in five years, manipulates its currency, subsidises its state-owned enterprises and steals intellectual property from America and Germany—or demands it in return for access to its market”.

However, as I said, the balance of expert opinion seems clearly of the view that international trade, provided that certain regulatory mechanisms are in place, promotes both growth and employment. An OECD paper of May 2012 called Trade, Growth and Jobs summarises that organisation’s view. It concludes:

“Trade improves employment and wages through growth … Trade—both imports and exports— contribute to creating better jobs … there is no systematic long run link between import levels and unemployment ... Trade can also improve working conditions”.

In addition to all this, there are some compelling examples of where the absence of international trade damages both growth and employment. The world uses sanctions as an instrument of persuasion precisely because of the damage caused by constraint in external trade. There is a compelling example in the middle of the Mediterranean: Northern Cyprus has been effectively cut off from any significant internationa1 trade for 40 years, and the consequences have been poverty, unemployment, and low growth and investment.

However, the benefits arising from international trade may not be as clear or as straightforward, or as equitably distributed, as a Panglossian reading might suggest. There are, of course, two kinds of international trade: goods and services—and financial services are a major component of the second group. I do not think that anyone would argue that the collapse of 2007-08 has not damaged growth and employment in very many communities. The connectedness inherent in international trade can be a major cause of reversals in growth and employment. That is especially true when regulation proves inadequate, and I shall return to the theme of regulation a little later.

However, I note that even when international trade promotes growth and employment, as it frequently does, it can also have other important consequences. It can have cultural consequences that may be seen as undesirable—France’s attitude to the Anglo-Saxon model, mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, is a case in point. The opening up of new markets may also have unpredicted cultural consequences. For example, I believe that Prince Philip is still worshipped as a god by a cargo cult on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu.

International trade agreements may also significantly advantage large corporations over SMEs and micro-businesses. They may act to reduce economic stability via contagion. We have seen examples of that both in sovereign debt and in the Asian markets. Finally, international trade may act to reduce democratic oversight of the operations of the market. This can take the form of simple distance from the transactions, complexity and lack of transparency in trade agreements and non-accountable dispute resolution procedures. In the time remaining, I shall comment on just three of these areas.

The first is the question of whether international trade agreements should now concentrate more on supply chains than on tariff reductions. The World Economic Forum at its meeting a year ago focused on reducing supply chain barriers, which it is estimated would give a bigger boost to GDP than removing tariffs. Improving border administration and transport and communications infrastructure could increase global GDP by 5% and would have six times the effect of removing all global tariffs. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House how the Government currently see the proper balance between reducing supply chain barriers and reducing or removing tariffs.

The second area is the position of SMEs in all this. The CBI reports that, in the UK, only one in five SMEs currently exports. It also notes that businesses are 11% more likely to survive if they export. Perhaps part of the problem is that SMEs are not properly represented in large-scale multilateral or bilateral trade negations. In January last year, the WEF recommended that SMEs be at the negotiating table when there is discussion of the regulatory framework and environment. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with that recommendation, and is it actually happening when the UK negotiates bilaterally and multilaterally through the EU?

My final point is on these negotiations. There is an alphabet soup of these things: FTAs, WTO, TPA, TPP and TTIP. Much of what goes on in these negotiations is complex, opaque and takes an awfully long time. Occasionally, it is all punctuated by a dramatic announcement. For example, a year ago the EU Trade Commissioner suddenly announced that he had personally saved the WTO,

“from the darkness of multilateral irrelevance”.

It may well have been true, but I cannot see that kind of thing quickening the pulse of anyone in an SME in, say, Merseyside.

That begins to illustrate a point. We need all our business communities to understand and feel that they have a part in trade negotiations, but we also need to make sure that Parliament has an effective oversight role. This was a point made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. This is currently a question in the TTIP negotiations which envisage, as they should, dispute resolution procedures. This is obviously vital when trading between different jurisdictions, but the question that has arisen is whether these non-governmental arbitration panels will have the power to override or amend local laws.

In the TTIP negotiations, there is a procedure called ISDS—investor to state dispute settlement. The EU acknowledged on 20 December last year,

“that ISDS, if not properly designed, can raise a number of legitimate concerns about whether legislation can be undermined by investors”.

Put another way, it is possible that in settlement of a trade dispute large companies can rewrite national laws. For example, Eli Lilly is currently suing the Canadian Government for $500 million under the terms of a trade treaty and demanding a rewrite of Canadian patent laws.

George Monbiot said in the Guardian on 4 November 2013,

“Brussels has kept quiet about a treaty”—

he means TTIP—

“that would let … companies subvert our laws, rights and national sovereignty”.

Ken Clarke responded to this a week later. He did not agree. However, the issue is clearly important. What role will Parliament have in determining the final text of the ISDS? What opportunity will we have for scrutiny? I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House on these points and on the proposed dispute resolution in general.

[Lord Giddens]

My Lords, the fact that George Monbiot says something does not necessarily mean that it is true. The Commission is well aware of the issues surrounding this. I do not think that we can say that this is not being discussed, because it is.

[Lord Sharkey]

I apologise if I suggested that everything that George Monbiot says is true. I did not mean that.

Returning to the issue of ISDS, I was saying that I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House on the points that I have made and on the proposed dispute resolution mechanisms in general.

Since I have mentioned Ken Clarke once, I will quote him once more, talking about the advantages of the TTIP deal:

“According to the best estimates available, an ambitious deal would see our economy grow by an extra £10bn per annum. It could see a rise in the number of jobs in the UK car industry of 7%. British companies—of all sizes—currently pay £1bn to get their goods into the US—this cost could be removed altogether. Perhaps most importantly in the long-term, such a deal would safeguard the liberal trading rules which we British depend on—but which the growing economies of the east are less keen on—for generations to come”.

I think that puts a succinct and powerful case for international trade as a promoter of growth and employment—growth and employment abroad and, critically, growth and employment at home too.

12:52

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on securing this debate on such an important subject. I reassure the House that I will not be quoting George Monbiot.

I believe that there is scope for taking a much more upbeat look at the situation than that of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. The news from the UK on employment is of job creation. Even among younger people who are very hard to employ, the numbers are going in the right direction. Contrast that with what is being said at Davos at the moment, where some people, including the French president of Total, are saying that Europe should be regarded as an emerging market. That is not the situation in this country.

In the motor industry, for instance, to which my noble friend Lord Sharkey just referred, exports of vehicles from this country in November were up by 10.7% on a year ago. That is a remarkable climb in a market that has been very difficult. UK car production over the last year hit a six-year high. Huge investment has made a difference. Nissan in Sunderland is responsible for halving the unemployment rate in that town. It now exports a remarkable 80% of production from that plant. Huge investment in that plant has managed to produce something that is a world-beater.

However, not every sector is as buoyant as the automotive sector. I was struck by the following information from the most recent trade statistics. Reporting our imports from non-EU countries, it was said that in November last year:

“The top five commodities are similar to the previous month although HS2 88”—

their arcane description for—

“Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof … has risen from fifth to fourth place forcing HS2 61 … into fifth place”,

in our imports. HS2 61 is:

“Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted”.

I try to keep abreast of trends but I am unaware of an avalanche of crochet coming into the country. Perhaps we would get a better grasp of what is going on in our imports and exports if we were to revisit the basis on which the trade figures are comprised.

The statistics, however, still show some good news. Exports to China have doubled since 2009. That is not enough—it is still only 1% of the market—but is certainly a creditable achievement. As we saw in the recent trade mission, a great deal is being done to build further alliances with China. The digital alliance, for instance, between UKTI and China is aimed at providing up to £2 billion in extra business for our creative industries. That trade mission did not just accomplish big deals for UK businesses but brought investment from China into this country. Chang’an Motors, for instance, is now making a £60 million investment in a West Midlands R&D centre, which will create 300 jobs. It would be really useful if a discipline adopted by the Government was to refer later to what has actually been achieved by these trade missions in the longer term. To hear what the follow-up has been would produce some interesting information for us, but would also probably put a deal of pressure on those businesses that go on trade missions to continue to work hard to capitalise on the extraordinary boost that they have been given.

However, one of the main problems for us is that companies are not investing. I talked about Sunderland, where Nissan’s huge investment has generated a vast number of jobs, made a big difference and made a hugely productive plant that can export. However, in this country and all around the world very few companies are investing and prefer to sit on their cash piles, which is why the employment figures are going up but, I am afraid, the productivity figures look very disappointing. Investment in modern plant and technology creates improved productivity. One thing that I am desperate to see, and to which I have referred in this House previously, is some incentive for big companies to invest at least a bit of that cash pile in smaller companies, thus generating more jobs and helping us to grow businesses.

More can be done. Next week, a report from the 2020 commission, entitled Sweating our Assets, will be launched in the other place and has been led by Laura Sandys MP. I have been delighted to have a small part in the work that it has done, which has been very much in collaboration with the Engineering Employers’ Federation. Some of the ideas that it has come up with will, I hope, help this country to improve productivity. There is a long way to go on that.

The Government are determined to boost trade. As my noble friend Lord Marland said, and put into practice when he was Trade Minister, many initiatives are under way. Last year, in October, the Government launched Grow Online, Expand Worldwide—a scheme aimed at helping small and medium-sized British companies to expand their e-commerce operations. We are already one of the leaders in that field. According to the Business Secretary Vince Cable:

“Britain’s 220,000 online retailers export more than the rest of Europe’s e-retailers combined”.

The Government have been energetic in providing support for exporters, with the aim of doubling exports by 2020. That is a brave aim and one that demands support. It is, however, a very big ask: it requires exports to grow by 8% a year. We are not getting anywhere near that at the moment. In part, to reach that target, there have been dramatic changes in the way in which the support network overseas works. There is increased reliance on British chambers of commerce abroad. This has created a degree of concern among some companies and other business organisations. Some chambers of commerce abroad are effective, strong organisations but vary in quality. Can the Minister assure us that the quality of those chambers is being monitored and that we are confident that this is the best method?

Our chambers of commerce differ from the German chambers, where membership is mandatory. There are some concerns that we may be moving in that direction, as smaller businesses of course want nothing which will involve them having to pay subscriptions to organisations to which they do not particularly want to belong. I understand the logic in taking responsibility for small and medium-sized exporters away from our embassies. I believe that the theory is that the embassies can then concentrate on helping the really big deals go through. I am a great admirer of the skills of our embassies overseas, which do great work. I would like reassurance that we are making the best landscape for encouraging our exporters. I have been particularly impressed, for instance, by the high commission in Delhi and its work building exports in India. The people in those embassies really know their markets.

I return to the undoubtedly good news. Noble Lords will have seen today’s announcement by James Dyson that he will triple the number of engineers working in Malmesbury on creating his brilliant designs. Products will not be manufactured in this country; that is just not competitive. We have to accept that our skills are really on the inventive side. James Dyson says that:

“Competitive advantage rests on knowledge and developing patentable ideas that can be exported—and our intellectual property is owned in the UK”.

We are an inventive race. Over the years we have created some of the most important things in the world today. I do not need to mention Tim Berners-Lee. On a smaller scale, look at Fever-Tree. I would hazard a guess that most noble Lords have come across Fever-Tree, which creates some of the best mixer drinks in the market. Who would have thought, just 10 years ago, that there was a market for a new creator of fizzy drinks to mix with gin? Fever-Tree spotted the gap in the market and now, just a few years later, exports 75% of its turnover. There are a hundred and one stories such as that about inventive British companies, which we need to support.

In conclusion, I take comfort from the fact that, thanks to the determination of our Government to tackle the deficit, no one in Davos this week is saying that the UK should be regarded as an emerging market.

13:02

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations and my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for this debate, which enables the House to focus on this very important issue today. Standard economic theory tells one that economic growth is a positive function of two variables: increases in factors of production and increases in productivity. Increases in productivity arise from the application of technology, changes in work practices and specialisation. The three things go very much hand in hand. Specialisation is what requires trade: trade within the local community, within one nation and internationally.

We can all take pride in the fact that the central economic theory breakthroughs in this area are all achievements of the great British political economists. Smith first identified the importance of specialisation with his memorable analogy in The Wealth of Nations about the makers of pins, who suddenly became more productive when one man ceased to make the whole pin and another man added the head. Fifty years later Ricardo formulated the much more counterintuitive theory of comparative advantage. This demonstrated that a country with an absolute advantage in everything still has an interest in trading with its neighbours, because if it concentrates all its resources on those areas where its absolute advantage is greatest, it will so increase its output as to be able to purchase anything else it needs from the world on very favourable terms. Global output and global welfare will then be maximised. Those theories are now just as embedded and well established in economic science as Maxwell’s equations are in physics, Mendeleev’s periodic table is in chemistry, or Darwin’s theory of natural selection is in biology.

Over the past 50 or 60 years and the lifetime of most of us in this House, there has been a remarkable phase of economic growth. This has been cyclical, as one expects, but nevertheless it is extraordinary. I often wonder whether it can be continued over the next 50 or 60 years. There have been four very special, remarkable and unusual features to the last 60 or 70 years, which have made possible that great growth in output. All of those four developments can and should go further. They should be pushed further, which I will come to in a moment. However, it is not clear to me that they can be effectively replicated or replaced in their totality. We should be quite worried about that, and should not be complacent in simply extrapolating the growth rates of the last 50 years—which in this country have averaged about 2.5% per annum—into the indefinite future.

The first of those great developments and changes was the introduction of the female half of the human population into the labour force of developed countries. Obviously, that was an event of enormous social consequences, but also enormous economic importance. That is a classic example of an increase in a factor of production, of the major factor of labour.

The second great development of the last 50 or 60 years has been what I call the economic emancipation—unfortunately not always accompanied by political emancipation—on free market models of countries in the Far East. The first of these was Japan, followed by Korea, Taiwan and the ASEAN countries, and then over the last 20 years by China and India. China and India alone account for more than 2 billion of the world’s 6 billion population. That is an enormously important development for the future of everybody on the globe. Can it be reproduced? Can an equivalent dramatic event occur in the future? That is a classic case of the rise in productivity which happens when people move from very low productivity activities such as agriculture—sometimes at subsistence or near-subsistence level—into manufacturing and into the cities. That has been the history of Asia over the last two generations.

The third factor, which I do not need to dwell on as everybody knows about it, is the introduction of IT into the economy. Again, I do not doubt that we have much further to go on this, but is it possible to envisage that over the next 50 or 60 years there will be an equally dramatic impetus to growth from new technology? I do not know, but I sometimes worry about that.

The fourth factor, which comes down to the subject introduced today by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is the growth in free trade. Since the Kennedy round in the 1960s right through to the latest chapter—I hope it is not the end—in the Doha process, there has been a steady reduction in tariff barriers. This has been a great achievement, and a great boost to growth. The establishment of regional free trade areas or economic areas of co-operation is, in a way, the greatest success. The European Union has been a model for the whole world. It has done something which none of the others has succeeded in doing: addressing the non-tariff barriers to trade just as effectively as the tariff barriers. We all know that the non-tariff barriers are the most difficult to deal with.

It is very unfortunate that the Doha round seems to have run into the sand. Perhaps it can be pulled out, as we all hope. In the mean time we must concentrate on doing what we can. The Government and the European Union in partnership have been very sensible in putting the emphasis on doing trade deals, particularly with other economic groupings around the world. Quite the most important of those is the potential EU-US trade agreement.

I will spend the rest of my time asking the Minister about that agreement, because it is so important that the House of Lords—and, indeed, the House of Commons—are kept up to date. We all know that the negotiations are taking place, and of course practically they can only take place at the level of the European Union. Clearly, this is one of the great things which the European Union can do much more effectively than 28 different countries could do separately. They could not even begin to think about it. I know that mechanisms are in place for national Governments to keep abreast of the developments. It is very important that they in turn keep us abreast of developments, so perhaps I can ask one or two questions.

We should bear in mind that this is an enormous challenge and that the United States does not have a good record as a free trader. On two occasions in the 20th century, or, at least, in the past 130 years—first, with the McKinley tariff in 1890 and, secondly, with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the interwar period—the United States led the way in starting a world tariff war, with disastrous results for everybody concerned. We also have to remember that the two Democrat Administrations—the Woodrow Wilson and Kennedy Administrations—reduced tariffs. Thank goodness, both Republican and Democrat Administrations in the United States have been committed to freer trade over the past two generations. However, we are going forward into this negotiation, which I think is going to be enormously complicated and take a very long time. Some of the great challenges are very unclear, so perhaps I may ask the Minister some very precise questions. If he does not know the answers to them, I should like him to write to me, if he would be so kind, and to place a copy of his letter in the Library so that the whole House can be informed.

First, at the behest of the French, as we know, a whole area of cultural products was taken out of the negotiating mandate by the Commission. I should like to know what the American response to that has been. Have the Americans accepted it or are they asking for a difficult, or any, quid pro quo?

Secondly, what scope is there for getting joint recognition of geographical descriptions of products—for example, the preservation of the concept of Scotch whisky or champagne—in the United States? That would mean that no one was allowed to produce New York or Californian champagne. This is an important issue. Is it in the negotiating brief? Is it something that the Minister is confident we can achieve?

Thirdly, what about the ownership rules? The United States, unlike the European Union, has ownership rules in certain sectors. I think I am right in saying that foreigners can own only 25% of an airline or 25% of a broadcasting corporation. Those are important sectors and there may be others as well. Are those issues on the table? Is it practicable and possible that the Americans will change those rules?

Fourthly, the Jones Act always struck me as being one of the most extraordinary pieces of protectionism. It prevents vessels which are not American-owned and American-crewed handling merchandise from one American port to another. It is rather like the navigation Acts that we had in this country and in Europe in the 17th century, but it is still alive and kicking in the United States. Is that on the table and is it going to continue?

Fifthly, I understand that the European Commission has given an assurance that the negotiating mandate will exclude health and environmental protection measures. For example, the European Union would not have to accept the import of American beef produced with the use of growth hormones. That is potentially an important public health issue, so I am told. Equally, in the EU we control GM products for environmental reasons; the Americans do not. Are we going to have to give up our controls on GM plants and crops? What is the American position on this?

Finally, I have a question on the whole area of insurance. This seems to be an extraordinarily difficult area in which to make progress because it is managed and controlled by the states and not by the union of the United States. Each state has its own insurance commissioner. In many states, no foreign insurers are allowed at all in the insurance market. Other states let them in for what they call “surplus lines”, where the local insurance companies do not want or do not have the capacity to handle the business. Obviously in relation to certain things, such as wind storms on the east coast and earthquakes in California, they do not want their insurance companies to bear the whole potential risk burden. What is happening on insurance? Is it going to be opened up and are we going to be able to sell insurance directly, either through binding authorities or on the internet, to retail customers in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, or Kansas City, Missouri?

Those are some of the essential questions on which I think it would be very useful to have an update, and I should be very grateful if the Government could give it to us.

13:13

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord’s theoretical and practical contribution to this debate, and I welcome the opportunity given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, to speak on this issue. I wish to pick up on a couple of points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned and to discuss two export sectors that are of considerable significance to the Scottish and UK economies. I want to focus, in particular, on rural Scotland. For skilled workers in difficulties in the recession that has taken hold in the manufacturing sector in rural Scotland over the past few years, there are two shining lights, but both need support from the Government.

I should like to address some areas where removing barriers to international trade will allow whisky exports to continue to grow and will also allow opportunities for the Scottish textiles sector. Unlike other noble Lords, I have no interests to declare in this debate, other than to point out that my title of “Tweed” relates to the river rather than the cloth, although, incidentally, the latter was named after the former nearly 200 years ago. These are iconic products. “Iconic” is an overused word but I think it is appropriate to describe these two Scottish products—whisky and textiles. They are of the highest quality in both product and brand, and they have a heritage that is surpassed hardly anywhere in the world. They continue to represent key areas of employment and domestic economic activity, and are areas known for their innovation and creativity—the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned innovation and technology. I am not resting on their laurels; they are of significance for the economy.

Some 35,000 jobs are supported by the Scotch whisky industry, including 10,000 directly related to production. In textiles—medical textiles and pioneering research for technical textiles—Scotland in many respects leads the world. Often, as I indicated, the jobs are in rural and remote Scottish areas, where there is little alternative employment. Jobs supported by the whisky industry include those in packaging, tourism, logistics, maltsters and cereal suppliers, and this industry shares many of the attributes mentioned by my noble friend Lady Miller. We are often told not to mix grain and grape, but I think that in this context we share many priorities.

Scotland’s textile sector remains a key employer in many parts of Scotland, including the one close to my heart in the Scottish Borders. The sector currently employs in the region of 9,000 people across 600 businesses manufacturing textiles, apparel and leather products. For nearly 1,000 years, woollen and woven goods have been exported from the Scottish Borders. Most noble Lords will have worn Scottish textiles and most will have partaken of the occasional dram. Thankfully, few will have drunk counterfeit whisky, but perhaps more will have worn textiles that were either cheaper and poorer-quality products purporting to be Scottish or were otherwise based on traditional Scottish designs but were manufactured in areas where the quality is poorer and the labour conditions even worse. We do not need to go far back in history to find the awful example of the incident in Bangladesh. Such poor labour standards in manufacturing textiles can make us proud of our standards in the United Kingdom.

That leads me to my first area of concern. It is in our economic interests to protect these exports. The current round of negotiations for the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, gives the UK and its EU partners the opportunity to address some of the areas where support is needed for these sectors.

Scottish textiles, and in particular woollen and woven goods, require protection to maintain brand standards. The mislabelling, and therefore mis-selling, of goods that are not made in Scotland is a continuing concern for the sector and it is an area where the Government can assist in providing support. Clear labelling of the country of origin for manufactured textile goods is of significant importance given that some retailers in the UK—even in Scotland—and around the world sell woollen or cashmere products that claim to be Scottish or from Edinburgh or the Highlands, or they purport to be of a Scottish design and therefore give the impression that they are manufactured in Scotland, whereas they are actually manufactured in other countries, typically China, Pakistan, India or Vietnam. By ensuring that the Government use all the powers available to their offices and agencies around the world, and by encouraging domestic prosecuting authorities, whether it is the Lord Advocate in Scotland or the authorities in England and Wales, we can support and protect this important British product by making sure that customers are aware of what they are buying. .

The Scotch Whisky Association, regrettably but necessarily, has to use considerable resource in pursuing legal challenges around the world against those mislabelling and mis-selling Scotch whisky. The reality for many textile companies is that they do not have the reach or the resources to do this. Therefore, I should like Her Majesty’s Government to explore how they can use their trade representatives around the world to look at how more support can be offered to ensure that there is aggressive and proactive policing of those undermining Scottish exports.

In the latest round, EURATEX, the European trade body for textiles, and its American counterpart, the American Apparel and Footwear Association, sent a joint letter in December to Michael Froman, the US Trade Representative, and Karel De Gucht, the Commissioner for Trade, which said that,

“design, creativity and innovation are at the core of our companies’ strategies and we rely on the authorities to clarify and improve coordination mechanisms on Intellectual Property Rights … in order to better safeguard our companies’ creativity. Maintenance of an appropriate framework of intellectual property protection and effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is vital for individual brands and companies in the context of the T-TIP”.

It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the protection of intellectual property rights.

I do not expect the Minister to respond to that today but it would be most helpful if he would meet myself and representatives of the Scottish Textiles and Leather Association to discuss this and associated issues as they are fundamental to creating the conditions in the world and in the emerging markets for this sector to flourish.

These exports are of real significance already and the opportunities are huge. Scotch whisky leads the way for British food and drink in overseas markets, accounting for about 25% of all UK food and drink exports. The Scotch Whisky Association informs me that 40 bottles of Scotch whisky were shipped overseas each second in 2012. For many Scots that is both a tragedy and something to be proud of. Exports have increased by 87% in the past 10 years and the value of Scotch whisky exports increased by 11% to almost £2 billion in the first six months of 2013.

The Scottish textile sector remains an important contributor to the economy, with an annual turnover of £950 million, and exports of Scottish textile products are valued at £295 million. In fashion and interior textile design, Scotland operates in more than 100 markets worldwide, with major emphasis on the USA, Japan, Russia and Europe. Therefore the trade negotiations and promotion that the Minister will carry out is of fundamental importance to this sector.

Finally, touching on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about crippling tariff regimes, there are continuing barriers for Scottish woven exports. Noble Lords may be interested to know that in exporting a lambswool sweater from the Scottish Borders to the USA, a 16% import tariff is applied. That means that a sweater manufactured for $50 in the Scottish Borders, with a fourfold retail mark up plus a 16% tariff, will cost the US customer $232. That is a crippling tariff regime. While it is less for cashmere at 4%, both are above the average tariff rates that are currently being negotiated. I know that my right honourable friend Michael Moore has been pursuing this issue since he was first elected but we have an opportunity with T-TIP to have it addressed.

There are opportunities for both whisky and textiles in the emerging markets of Africa, South America and central America. Opinion formers and fashion and creative leaders in those markets should wish to be associated with these high-quality products. With the continuation of the Britain is Great campaign, with our brand reputation around the world increasing in value and with the support of the UK Government, we can make sure that barriers are lifted, opportunities are increased for whisky and textiles and the vulnerable rural areas, where many of these jobs are so important, can look forward to a positive future.

13:24

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, into what may be the Caledonian corner of this debate. Unfortunately, both he and I seem to have the same brief from the Scottish Whisky Association, so some of the statistics that I will be quoting may well be the same, although I have a slightly different slant on the matter.

I share some of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Harrison in opening the debate, but I want to talk specifically about the Scotch whisky industry. When I was a Member of Parliament, I had a sizeable involvement in the textiles industry. Sadly, that industry is now gone, with the exception of a small amount of cashmere spinning, which is important for the rest of what you might call the Scottish woollen knitting industry.

Whisky is identified with Scotland. Indeed, the generic term “Scotch” covers all whisky which is not spelt with an “e”. We have already heard of the great importance the volume of Scotch whisky has for the Scottish economy. While it is correct to say that whisky distilling is set in rural circumstances and a lot of the raw materials come from the agricultural sector, it is also fair to say that the 30,000-plus employees in the Scotch whisky industry cover a variety of trades and economic activity across not only Scotland but the whole of the United Kingdom. It is therefore of great importance.

It is one of the few British products that any foreign traveller will see as they pass through airports with duty-free facilities, because there is always Scotch available. Not only is it available, but it is of consistent quality and people can have confidence in what they are buying. This is partly because of the efforts of the industry to maintain high standards but also because it enjoys a degree of support through the common market—and not only the common market of the United Kingdom but the free market represented by the European Union, which has been invaluable in supporting the Scotch whisky industry over the years.

As I have said, I had a constituency interest in the industry. Indeed, when I was a young candidate more than 30-odd years ago, one of the first bits of local colour that I was given was that I was told that the value of whisky stored in Clackmannanshire represented more than the worth of the gold in the Bank of England. I shall not comment on whether or not that was apocryphal but, certainly, when you drive through central Scotland and you look over to the Ochil hills, you will see miles of what used to be called bonded warehouses, where there is stored cask upon cask of Scotch malt whisky. That whisky can be there for anything up to 15 to 20 years. It represents a massive commitment by investors in the industry. Most of it in these warehouses is produced by the Diageo group, but the fact is that the Scotch whisky industry is a long-term industry.

Indeed, not only are taxes paid to the British Government, there is also the “angel tax”, which is the amount of whisky which escapes through the wooden casks and into the air. As you walk through these bonded warehouses, as I have done on occasion, you can have quite a heady experience if you stay there long enough—which I have not had the privilege of doing. However, as Ken Loach showed in his movie “The Angels’ Share”, there is evidence that the Scotch whisky industry requires the persistence and confidence of investors.

What concerns me is that, in the run-up to the independence or separation referendum in September, people will forget the complications with which the Scotch whisky industry will be presented if there were to be a yes vote. For a start, we would not become members of the European Union immediately. In the short term, we would be denied the services of the European Commission in the opening of new markets. The Commission has done a great deal to ensure what it calls the integrity of the product. This includes a consistent minimum level of alcoholic strength and that the “Scotch” name is protected. As my noble friend Lord Davies said a few minutes ago, the word “Scotch” is protected, and that is a consequence of the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU.

There are several complex international considerations, so it is not for nothing that over the past 10 years the trade association of the Scotch whisky industry has been headed first by Gavin Hewitt and now by David Frost, both of whom are distinguished diplomats in their own right, having been ambassadors representing us abroad. This is a serious business and there will be serious consequences for the industry and for the Scottish economy if we are denied, even for a short period, the protection of the EU.

Any member state joining the EU has to accept the level of tariffs that prevail throughout the rest of the EU. At the moment, Hungary and Greece are in a somewhat acrimonious arm-wrestling process over their own tariffs, but I think it is fair to say that the Commission is confident of success. The fact is that, were Scotland to vote yes in September, this industry would be put at a great disadvantage for some time, and that is assuming that in the end an independent Scotland would be allowed to join the EU. However, much of the protection we enjoy at the present moment might well disappear. If that were to happen, I think that the confidence of investors in the industry would be jeopardised in a major way.

Equally, while Scotch enjoys a fantastic position internationally as a luxury product, a number of other drinks would seek to take advantage of the position of Scotland being denied EU membership. A fact that I always find quite surprising is that more Scotch is consumed in France than French brandy. I am pretty certain that the French drinks industry and the northern European white spirit industries would not stand idly by and let Scotland be given some kind of quasi-preferential status outwith the European Union.

When we hear about the strength of an independent, separate Scottish state, and that one of its elements would be the Scotch whisky industry, it is incumbent on the Government to spell out clearly the costs of not being a member of the EU. Perhaps some people will think about this tomorrow when another debate is held in this place. What is equally important is that it is essential to recognise that it would be not be business as usual for the Scotch whisky industry were there to be a yes vote in September.

It is an important industry; it is not some kind of Sleepy Hollow. As has been said, some 30,000 people are involved in it. Quality control and policing are undertaken by people of the highest calibre. Although it may sound a bit demeaning in some respects, the wages of the workers in this industry are now on a par with those of the best paid chemical process workers, who themselves are among the best paid in the UK economy. For a while, employment conditions in certain parts of the Scotch whisky industry were in a bit of a Sleepy Hollow but, led largely by Diageo over the past 25 years, there has been a dramatic improvement. The quality and nature of employment in the industry goes far beyond pouring drink into bottles. It is of a character that the United Kingdom requires and which Scotland would lose at its peril.

I therefore urge the Minister, not necessarily this afternoon but at an appropriate point, to spell out that whisky is as important to the United Kingdom as it is to Scotland, and that without the European Union alongside us, it would be a disaster for Britain and Scotland.

13:34

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for his opening remarks, culminating as they did in his almost impassioned plea for greater recognition of the importance of trade. I declare an interest as chairman of the Arab British Chamber of Commerce and so, perhaps unsurprisingly, I shall concentrate my brief remarks on trade with the Arab Middle East.

In spite of the current upheaval, the Middle East is a region that is full of opportunity for trade and investment—opportunities which are growing. But increasingly our business partners in the region are seeking commercial relationships based on partnerships and joint ventures; in short, based not just on one-off trade deals but on long-term business relationships with our Arab partners in the region. This is a fundamental point for securing not only Government-to-Government business, as I am sure the Minister is well aware, but business-to-business trade relationships.

There is an enormous problem in the region with the shortage of jobs for young people. That shortage is really acute, given that more than 50% of the population in the region is under the age of 25. Accordingly, in all the discussions and trade negotiations that I have had in the past few years, there has been a huge emphasis on two things. First, the transfer of skills—whether those skills are in IT or project management, whether they are specific to sectors such as the law or whether they are manual skills—is very highly prized. Secondly, the deals have to produce jobs, particularly jobs for young people. Can the Minister tell us how we in the United Kingdom are co-ordinating our efforts on those two vital elements as we try to take forward our trading relationships for the future? How are we getting those messages over to our business community?

I congratulate the Minister on starting his new job, and I am particularly delighted that he is concentrating within UKTI not only on high-value business opportunities, but also on trying to help medium-sized British companies develop trading relationships. That is hugely important, and I hope that he will be able to say more about what his plans are in that respect when he sums up the debate.

Finally, I make a plea to the Minister for more joined-up government on trade. My recent experience is that Ministers and their civil servants all work enormously hard but, my goodness, they still protect their turf. I know that it has always been like that—indeed, it was like that under the Government in which I served—but all civil servants still patrol the borders of the silos of their relationships with their own particular Ministers. That has to change if we are to do proper relationship building that goes right the way across government. We need joint initiatives involving UKTI, BIS, the FCO, the MoD, which is also slightly on the silo side, and DfID, which has a real role to play here, as do other government departments where there is enormous export potential, such as education, health, transport and agriculture. Relationship building is crucial to trade with the Arab Middle East, but, to be effective, Government have to act as Government and not just as individual departments.

13:38

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for taking the initiative in organising this debate and for his very thoughtful speech. We have had many excellent contributions, notably from my noble friend Lady Symons who is experienced in the practice of trade promotion. Earlier we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marland, and various sectors have been discussed, ranging from the challenge of UK wine by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to the reputation of Scotch whisky by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord O’Neill. The complexities of financial services were considered by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, while my noble friend Lady Thornton talked about the potential of social enterprise.

It is a great pleasure to welcome to his first debate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead. I think he has answered Questions before but this is his first debate. He probably does not remember but I first met him when he was part of a group of businesspeople whom my noble friend Lord Mandelson, of Hartlepool and Foy, sought advice from when he was Business Secretary. We all welcome him to the Front Bench and his new role, and wish him every success in what is a vital national interest.

I start with the central point that one or two noble Lords have mentioned: improving our trade is essential to the rebalancing of the economy which the Chancellor set out as one of his key objectives in 2010. I will focus on trade policy rather than trade promotion, because I think that the Minister has an important role in trade policy. Of course, this all takes place in the context of globalisation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out the extraordinary change in economic openness in the past 20 years. The figures I saw were that from 1960 until the end of the Cold War only one in five of the world’s population lived in an economically open society. Now, on some calculations, it is as high as 90%. That is a huge transformation.

Of course, for advocates of openness, this leads to a major political challenge because people, particularly in the developed world, worry about where their jobs are going to come from if we face all this low-wage competition. The Government talk about a global race. I would like to know how the Minister interprets this. Clearly, there are causes for optimism in Britain’s economic and trade position, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, but among the general public many people feel that the rewards of globalisation are being appropriated by the few, not the many, and worry that instead of a race to the top, we are actually seeing a race to the bottom.

One of the key political challenges for all the political parties in Britain is how to build public support for economic openness. Of course, we do not help that if we get into a political race to see who can be the toughest against immigration. When we talk about trade, we have to be prepared to make the argument that it is not just our exporters who benefit from more open trade, it is our poorest families—for instance, in buying children’s shoes and clothes—who have greatly benefited from the opening up of the world economy in the past 20 years.

What is the Government’s strategy for trade? How does the current emphasis on regional agreements fit in with sustaining the multilateral trade system? The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked a lot of very relevant questions about the transatlantic trade initiative. I am not going to repeat them; it is vital and a great opportunity but it also raises lots of difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, talked about people’s fears about how trade arbitration can overcome laws that we have agreed either in the UK or at EU level. That is a legitimate concern. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, about parliamentary accountability at both EU and national level are of great importance.

Another question is: does the Minister recognise the key importance of services to Britain’s trade prospects? I am sure he does. But once we say that we recognise the key importance of services, we get straight into the question of migration. For instance, as I know from when I was in the Commission, in the negotiations between the EU and India, a key demand of the Indians was for a more liberal visa regime for their IT companies. How do we handle these questions?

A key economic strength of Britain is in our higher education—I declare an interest as pro chancellor of Lancaster University—medicine, culture and sport. The Minister is a former director of Celtic. In all these areas, British success depends on an open policy towards people from the rest of the world. Where do the Government stand on this?

The key question for trade is that of Britain and the European Union. I know that this is a familiar theme, which I have spoken about many times in this House and we will be debating again tomorrow, but does the Minister accept the point made by several noble Lords around the Chamber that Britain outside the European Union would be in a much weaker position to make representations to China on intellectual property, to countries that are marketing counterfeit Border textiles, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about, or to people marketing whiskies that are not genuine Scotch whiskies? I know there has been a problem with that in India. What strength would we have if we were outside the EU? The Government have to come clean on this question. How would we be able to participate in a transatlantic agreement if we were not members of the EU? What would be our prospects for attracting inward investment into this country if we were not members of the EU?

Since we have such an interest in the EU trade agenda, it is vital that Britain maximises its influence in Brussels. I know from when I worked in my noble friend Lord Mandelson’s cabinet that a large part of what the EU member states do on trade is actually to negotiate with each other on what the EU policy in negotiations with the outside world is going to be. But we all know that as a member state, we cannot negotiate with other member states if, as Herman Van Rompuy once put it in a very good speech, it always seems as though we have one hand on the door handle and are about to rush outside. This question of Britain’s relations with the EU is not some fanciful political question; it is a very real question for the Minister’s responsibilities and we greatly look forward to his reply.

13:49

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Livingston of Parkhead) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for initiating this important debate. I am very much aware of the noble Lord’s contribution in this area, and his expertise has been shown by his thoughtful comments. I will seek to outline our Government’s approach to trade, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and other noble Lords.

International trade is, of course, essential to the world economy. It creates growth and employment, and enhances consumer choice and value. It is not just something for “rich” countries or big business. Trade is the greatest single tool to bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and set countries on the path of development. Trade is vital to the UK’s economy. We have an open economy and seek to champion that; we have a global outlook and a strong and proud history of commerce. Exports are equivalent to over 30% of UK GDP and, in the last financial year alone, FDI into the UK supported in excess of 100,000 jobs.

The noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Davies of Stamford, outlined their support for free trade agreements, which I very much welcome. It is important that the whole global community can benefit from trade, and to do that we require a functioning global trade regime. It should reduce or, ideally, remove the barriers to imports and exports and provide convergence of standards so customers around the world can choose the best of what the world has to offer. I hope that they will choose “Made in the UK”, and it is part of my role to make sure that they do that more regularly.

This Government are proud of their position at the forefront of European and global efforts to facilitate free-trade growth. My predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Green, whose outstanding work in his two and a half years as Trade Minister I commend, was a vice-chair at the World Trade Organisation Conference in Bali in December, where the important trade facilitation package was agreed. This agreement will cut red tape and unnecessary processes and streamline customs procedures at borders. It will benefit the UK by around £1 billion per annum. However, crucially, most of the gain is global, with around $100 billion accruing particularly to emerging nations such as those in Africa.

My noble friend Lord Sharkey asked how we balance reducing barriers with supply-chain issues. Both are important, but I would also mention convergence: in many areas we have already reduced or removed trade barriers in terms of tariffs, but we also have to have convergence of standards so that manufacturers can produce global products and customers can enjoy them. Each and every one has its place and perhaps a different emphasis, depending on which area and which country we are negotiating with.

The UK has used its influence with both our EU colleagues and a wide range of other countries to help create a global consensus—we most definitely have such influence while in the EU. However, it has to be recognised that this was the first multilateral agreement in 20 years. It is appropriate, in the mean time, that the EU and other economies around the world have also pursued plurilateral and bilateral deals as well as regional routes to trade liberalisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, pointed out, those do not contradict each other; they can be mutually reinforcing and help build overall a system of improved trade, with higher volumes and prosperity.

Again, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts here. We were influential in shaping the EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, which was mentioned. This came into force in the summer of 2011 and was widely considered the first of a new generation of EU free trade agreements, in that it is genuinely deep and significantly more comprehensive than previous agreements. It has eliminated 97% of tariffs and addressed many of the non-tariff barriers. It makes doing business with South Korea much more straightforward. The results and successes of this agreement are clear, with trade between the UK and South Korea doubling over the course of the year following the agreement compared to the years before. Part of that is oil, but even excluding oil we saw a 40% increase in trade with South Korea. It may surprise many noble Lords that the UK now runs a £2.6 billion surplus in trade with South Korea. Before the agreement, it was broadly neutral.

Negotiations are also under way with a wide range of markets—east and west, large and small, developed and emerging. The largest of these is of course TTIP, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. This agreement was described by the US ambassador to the UK as,

“an important trade deal with a lousy acronym”.

He has a point, but what is more important is that it could be worth up to £10 billion to the UK. It is correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned, that we helped to sponsor a study to show the positive impact of the agreement in various US states. Why did we do that? Because it is very easy to spot the losers, but it is important that it is understood, on both sides of the Atlantic, where the winners are. Within the UK we have a clear view of the winners: for example, if we conduct a comprehensive TTIP, we expect the car industry to increase by 4.1% and financial services by 1.1%. There are real benefits for UK industry. However, critically, the point has been made previously in this House, including in Questions I have answered, that it will also benefit consumers, giving them better choice and lower prices.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised a number of questions regarding TTIP, which I will do my best to try to answer. First, audio-visual services are initially excluded from negotiations at the behest of the French Government. The negotiation mandate was, unfortunately, leaked, so the US is of course already aware of it. However, we are just starting negotiations and setting out initial positions, and we will have to see how that is reflected and any interrelationship. The Jones Act might well be one of the quid pro quos but discussions will almost definitely continue and the UK will make its points. UK business is of course keen to see the removal of the Jones Act. We are raising this with the US Administration directly and through negotiations.

GIs are in scope, and the US and EU are taking different approaches to protecting geographical items. As the EU has done in other agreements, such as with Canada, it will seek protection of a list of geographical indications. However, to give comfort to the Scottish contingent, of which I am one, Scotch whisky is already protected in the US.

The US wants the EU to adopt a more science-based approach to treatments of food and the approval, for instance, of GM items. Her Majesty’s Government agree that the EU could improve its currently slow approval system but it is early days for all of these matters and, we should stress, there is a lot to be done on TTIP.

The EU has also launched other negotiations, including with Japan and India. It has also, as I mentioned earlier, reached—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Before the Minister leaves the topic of EU-US negotiations, will he perhaps address the questions I asked about insurance?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

I will write separately regarding the matter of insurance. I have tried to pick up the various issues that have been raised and if I have missed any other detailed questions put by noble Lords I will be more than happy to discuss them or write separately on them. I will also come back to the role of Parliament in approving such agreements.

As I was saying, the EU has launched negotiations with Japan and India and reached an agreement with Canada. We believe that is worth over £1 billion and could be a good model for the start of discussions on TTIP. Our role in and membership of the EU is important to that, along with, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, our role in the Commonwealth. Canada is of course a member of the Commonwealth, and discussions are ongoing with India. We also want the EU to use trade policies to support development by putting in place economic partnership agreements with African and Caribbean countries. I hope to see good progress on EPAs this year at the same time as making progress on FTAs.

The role of Parliament is very important and I was interested in comments from noble Lords that they do not feel they discuss trade very much. I have been in this role for about four weeks and have had three Questions here in the House and a debate. It does feel, as a Minister, that we are discussing this issue on quite a regular basis. However, I shall also make an appearance in front of a Select Committee to discuss TTIP. TTIP and any other agreement will go through the appropriate scrutiny process, while it is recognised, of course, that the EU has competence in many of the areas involved here.

We are discussing these matters also with many other lobbying groups; for instance, small businesses and consumer groups. We meet regularly with Which? to hear its views, because it is important that we represent large businesses, small businesses and, of course, consumers in these discussions.

While these trade deals provide real benefit to the UK, the EU remains a cornerstone of our prosperity. The single market remains the most important trading area: 45% of our exports are to the EU and seven of the UK’s top 10 trading partners are EU member states. The UK is a passionate believer in the single market, and a key part of the reforms that we are seeking is to support and extend that. In the negotiations that we seek with the EU, free trade, prosperity and growth will be a cornerstone.

I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, regarding the risk posed to Scotland by a departure from the UK and consequent departure from the EU and the free trade agreements. I have made this point passionately already—if your Lordships read the Herald and the Scotsman, you will see me quoted—and will continue to do so, as will government and, I hope, noble Lords.

I should also mention Africa, which is one of the fastest-growing regions and will be an increasingly important market for the UK. Many UK-based firms have already spotted the opportunities for business in Africa. Total UK exports to Africa in 2012 were worth £20 billion, which was more than to Russia and Turkey combined. But that is only a starting point. Many more UK-based firms could be doing business in Africa. There are opportunities in all sectors, particularly in energy, infrastructure, healthcare, ICT, professional services, and education and skills. We will work across government, particularly with DfID and the FCO, to maximise our efforts in Africa, and help in the implementation of the agreements reached in Bali on free trade and reducing barriers. Africa will be the big beneficiary; it is important that the UK uses its knowledge, influence and relationships to help achieve this.

Another area that is often raised in regard to trade is human rights. The Government strongly believe that the promotion of business should go hand in hand with respect for human rights. It is now more important than ever for us to help British companies succeed but to do so in a way that is consistent with our values. I believe strongly that personal freedoms contribute to economic development and vice versa. The thread of safeguards running through society that are good for human rights—good governance, the rule of law and property rights—usually go hand in hand with economic growth and trade.

We also recognise the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Miller regarding the impact of trade on food. One of the most basic human rights is the right to eat. Trade and economic development are the most effective ways of raising people out of starvation and poverty. The World Bank estimates that developing countries that have opened up their economies to trade grow three times faster than those which have not. The opening-up of trade particularly in agricultural products will be an important next stage in many of the trade negotiations, particularly between the EU and African countries. I note the comments on food production made by my noble friend and they are well taken.

I note also the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and thank her for her very hard and productive work in the Arab world promoting British trade and development. We note the points made about jobs. We will want to raise more trade with the Arab countries. Progress there on various trade negotiations and FTAs falls behind what we are doing in other areas of the world and should be looked at.

I have so far focused on the impact of trade at the global level. A key priority of this Government is to deliver economic growth and jobs in the UK. Business success in international markets is central to our economy. This is as true today as it was in May 2011 when UKTI launched its five-year strategy. That strategy set out how we were going to improve our trade position. We are targeting high-growth companies to encourage more exports and help existing exporters penetrate high-growth and emerging markets. We are winning business contracts for high-value opportunity. These are often in excess of £250 million each. We are delivering high-quality foreign direct investment to the UK, which I shall say more about shortly. Finally, we are building high-level relationships with inward investors and exporters. The Government are committed to build on this strategy and the many good initiatives that we have started.

Having taken up my new role just a month ago, this speech allows me to outline some of our priorities further to strengthen our trade efforts. We will support medium-sized businesses. I made an announcement yesterday that we will commit to contact all 9,000 medium-sized businesses to help them with trade. More than a third of them do not export today and, in an even greater number, exports account for less than 10% of their trade. Only 17% of them export outside the EU. If we are successful with them, the CBI believes that this forgotten sector of our economy could raise UK GDP by up to £50 billion by 2020.

We will enhance our support for small companies through better marketing. UKTI does a great job, but I have to recognise that it is not as well known as it might be. We will conduct targeted marketing exercises and improve our web capability. I note the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about social enterprises. We will think about how we include them. Small companies, large companies and social enterprises all have their role in the UK’s overall trade efforts.

We will continue to focus on China, India and other high-growth markets. I am told that I am running out of time, so we must conclude. We will do a number of things to improve our overall position. We recognise so many of the opportunities. The UK has had many successes in exporting and we have some great companies. We are exporting cheese to France and spices to India. We will build on that. We will grow exports and we will continue to champion free trade as a Government and move it forward.

14:07

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, I have thought dialectically about some of these matters. In listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I was taken back to my old stamping ground of Strasbourg. In listening to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I was taken to my contemporary stamping ground of the financial services. By the time we got to our two Caledonian colleagues, I was intoxicated on the Scotch Whisky Association. Encouraged by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I should perhaps admit that a scion of the Harrison family is one of Australia’s biggest wine manufacturers and exporters, not only to this country but in particular to China.

I thank the Minister for his response to the debate. When he has the opportunity and the time that the Whip has not yet given him, perhaps he could examine the questions that he was posed in debate, because we need a written reply to many of the substantial points. I was not simply asking—

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, the time for this debate has now passed. I must therefore put the Question that this Motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed.

Public Services: Economic and Climatic Challenges

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

14:09

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

That this House takes note of the resilience of the United Kingdom in the face of economic and climatic challenges and pressures on public services.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not come to moan or blame climate change. While all the issues that I shall raise are not the fault of the coalition, they are not the fault of the previous Labour Government either. I shall not deal with threats or malicious actions, but concentrate on hazards, natural accidents policy et cetera. This is also an opportunity to thank emergency services personnel for their magnificent work so far this winter. The statutory services have delivered. Environment Agency staff deserve special thanks if for no other reason than that they do not normally get the recognition they deserve. Then there is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, funded exclusively by the public so that Whitehall’s hands are not anywhere near it. It has been courageous in coastal waters and vital in the inland floods. I declare an interest as a governor member.

The Cabinet Office, which will answer this debate for the Government, has published each year since 2008 an unclassified version of the national risk assessment in the form of the National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies. It is an incredibly useful tool, though it does not cover all aspects of what I want to raise today, some of which includes the resilience of society at large in a social sense. I am also well aware from my time in government of the massive amount of planning and the exercises that take place to prepare for emergencies and test our resilience. The proof of proper planning and preparation preventing poor performance is the 2012 Olympics, but we seem in some ways to be scrimping along as a nation. That is a worry and why I want to raise these issues today.

On power supplies, the energy bosses from npower and EDF—as well as the former boss of Ofgem—spent a good deal of airtime in 2013 warning of power cuts due to lack of investment. National Grid’s Winter Outlook this winter says that the margins are tighter than we have ever seen. Ofgem says that if we get a 1-in-20 bad winter there will be real trouble as the risk of blackouts has tripled. Yet I opened the paper today only to see that E.ON is about to close one power station and run three others down—now, in the middle of winter. I accept that that is not all the fault of the coalition but it does not demonstrate the urgency that we need in this matter. The national risk register almost boasts that we have never had a total power outage—a point that it makes more than once. On gas storage, it remains the case that, unlike Italy, Germany and France, which can store between 59 and 87 days’ supply of gas, UK storage remains at 16 days. No action has been taken on that.

I also want to raise the issue of animal disease. We are only ever a phone call away from a vet in the field reporting a major outbreak. Heaven forbid that we have another foot and mouth outbreak, but we will at some point. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology’s POSTnote No. 392 tells us that measures for dealing with foot and mouth were exercised in 2011 under the codename “Silver Birch”. Do we have the vaccines at the ready and a willingness to use them, or, as was the case in 2001 and 2007, will industry be allowed to call the shots and avoid for a third time using vaccination? We dealt effectively with bluetongue in sheep and salmonella in poultry by vaccination. Are we ready for foot and mouth, as we were—as that POSTnote explains—in the exercises?

Last December, in a panic, the Department for Education made over £2 billion available for the rising school population. The children affected have all been born since the coalition formed—let us get that one out of the way. We are in a crisis where some local authorities will require 75% more places by 2015 than they had last September, and I would cite Norfolk, Thurrock and Croydon. Very substantial increases will be required in several other local authorities by 2016. Can we deliver on that? Local authorities are both a service delivery organisation for schools and a strategic education authority for an area. However, they can only extend local authority schools—they are not allowed to build or open any new schools and have no power to direct academies or free schools to open in a particular area. Who will spend the money on that? Surely we need a single capital pot for an area, irrespective of who runs the school. We are walking into a crisis affecting early years schooling. It is not too late to change that, but we cannot plan to have school places in the right locations quickly enough under the present system.

I do not have an issue with making local authorities and services more efficient, more accountable and better value for money—we are in desperate times—but with some councils it can appear that their own vested or narrow political interest is sometimes put above what the local citizens require. We have got to the point where the cuts now threaten key services—that has not really started yet. Street cleaning, adult social care, children’s services and the arts and libraries are all for the massive chop. Those areas affect our public, physical and mental health. We need the arts and libraries just the same. Much council spending is invisible to the population because most people do not actually use the services and only the vulnerable will feel the impact. For most people, when the services collapse what they see is the rubbish uncollected in the street. Then it comes home to them that someone from the local authority should have dealt with it. There is a problem of visibility there.

I am sure that some noble Lords will raise NHS issues in this debate. I do not intend to go down that road but observe that we are in a national obesity crisis. Yet my question to the Minister is: are we prepared for the increase in malnutrition among young children? That is an inevitable consequence of attacking the poor, both those in and those out of work. We know that Ministers do not like food banks, which makes matters even worse; yet the food banks are now under such pressure that they have to supply cold boxes and kettle boxes for those who cannot afford to use gas or electricity to cook food. There is also some evidence—I do not have the details of this as I heard it vaguely only yesterday—that more people are shopping day to day for food. The supermarkets can track this very tightly in urban areas. That means that if there is interruption from either power or transport our resilience as regards food may not be as good as in the past.

I also want to raise with the Government the issue of science laboratory capacity. I hope that somebody is doing something about it. We actually had a laboratory close at the height of the horsemeat scandal last March and many laboratory tests had to be sent out of the UK to other countries. Our laboratories are the ultimate mixture of academic, private, independent and local authority, and they are a vital UK strategic national asset. In my view, the Government’s chief scientist should lead on this. We need the laboratories for regulation and investigation as well as for the assurances required by industry for all kinds of events—that is, food, human and animal events as well as chemical, nuclear and biological threat events, which I will not raise today. We are on the edge of a real capacity problem as regards laboratories and the numbers of public analysts. The president of the Association of Public Analysts, Liz Moran, has on more than one occasion told parliamentary committees that we are in serious trouble in terms of our capacity. There were 41 analysts in 2007. There are 29 currently and that is due to go down to 28. That is a real problem for consumer and citizen protection, which will be the loser. It is a serious issue and has to be treated nationally.

Housing policy has never been politically sexy, at least not since the time of Harold Macmillan. That applies as much to my own party as to others, and I speak as someone who carried the portfolio for some years in opposition and briefly in government. There is no sense of a national plan. Demand is up due to the open borders demanded by the CBI and others to help keep wages down. Yet supply is so small that the inevitable happens: mobility ceases, debt for individuals goes sky high and we spend billions of pounds supporting landlords’ lifestyles rather than adding to stocks of bricks and mortar. The nearest we ever got to a plan in recent years was the communities plan published by my noble friend Lord Prescott in 2003. The successors of both parties seem to have got quite bored in delivering that.

The coalition appears to be at a complete loss about this major national, regional and intergenerational housing crisis, with millions of hidden homeless people in addition to those on the street. Land is not a problem. Some 1% to 2% of land plus the brownfield sites would solve our problems for 20 years. The reasoning is simple. Urban developments at present amount to about 11% of the land, national parks to 8%, areas of outstanding national beauty to 16% and the green belt to 14%. That adds up to 49%, so over 50% is available to take the 1% to 1.5% that we need to solve our problem. That is simple. Without building on any of the areas I have just touched on, enough land is available. Yet the best summing up of this I have found was a sentence in a very old essay:

“Democratic governments drift along the line of least resistance, taking short views, paying their way with sops and doles, and smoothing their path with pleasant-sounding platitudes”.

That describes the coalition’s housing policy but it was actually a sentence from the seminal 1931 essay by Winston Churchill in the Strand Magazine.

Weather events happen with or without climate change, let us be clear about that. The national risk register covers the lot. Two years ago, drought was a key crisis. We have to think about the serious volatility of changes in climate. The Thames barrier has a limited life. I had already put this in my notes, and I was really worried when I heard yesterday about the delay. The Thames barrier is sinking, and we are going to wait until 2070 before we start having a look at it. Flood defences are more than walls and dams: they should be environmental as well. I commend to the Government—I am sure that someone has read it—the major article by George Monbiot last week. It appeared first on Tuesday in the Guardian and then on two pages in the Mail on Sunday. True, the latter newspaper used it to attack the EU but the article was the same in both. George Monbiot highlighted the methods for preventing floods that UK scientists have being using for years in the tropics—planting trees in the hills to save and protect communities down stream from flooding. Here, we pay farmers to grub up trees and hedges and plant the hills with pretty grass and use sheep to maintain the chocolate box image, and then we wonder why we have floods where we should not really have them and which we could prevent if we took the advice. Monbiot says that water sinks into soil under trees at 67 times the rate that it sinks in under grass, so why are we not doing that in the UK in areas that we know flood unnecessarily?

My last point on floods is to express concern that the plan for sustainable insurance known “Flood Re” has again been delayed. I will not go into detail but the Swiss Re system for terrorism insurance has worked incredibly well, and I do not see why it cannot work for major floods. It could work for major animal disease outbreaks. The taxpayer is protected because the system allows a market in terrorism insurance to operate. If it is a good enough system to cover buildings in the City of London for terror attacks, the principle should be good enough to ensure that insurance is available for householders in major floods. The pool system works at all times except the most catastrophic, which is when the Treasury stands behind the pool. It is cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run.

Did I just mention the Treasury? I think for social resilience we have a problem with the Treasury. Resilience is the process of being able to return to the original state after being deformed, but we know that the Chancellor wants a smaller state. He wants to cut the public sector by making what he calls hard choices. His hard choices are the ones he finds easy to make, and are only hard on those affected who, in the main, are the weak and disadvantaged. His hard choices are to diminish local authorities, set the old against the young and not even talk about doing it in a fairer way. The young do not vote. Their turnout is two-thirds the rate of the rest, so if they do not vote and threaten him at the ballot box, why should he bother? I do not like this approach, to be honest. One reason is the seeming total lack of compassion and comprehension. It is not nice.

I looked around to try to explain the Chancellor’s approach to creating intergenerational conflict and a breakdown in general of the resilience of society, and I chose Donald Rumsfeld. We are all familiar with Rumsfeld’s quote from 2002 about the three categories of the known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. He did not invent them—they had been around for a while—but there is a fourth category highlighted by a psychoanalytical philosopher who I am greatly familiar with, Slavoj Žižek: the unknown known, or that which we intentionally refuse to acknowledge that we know. That is a perfect fit for the Chancellor. He knows what he is doing but refuses to acknowledge it and its consequences.

I was looking around, thinking about what would be a good example of this to finish on, and I found it on the front page of today’s Telegraph, which quotes the police:

“Documents disclosed by the Association of Chief Police Officers show plans have been drawn up for the cannon to be used …Police warn they expect water cannon will be required because ‘the ongoing and potential future of austerity measures are likely to lead to continued protest’”.

If the Government are in discussions with the Home Office preparing for problems on the streets because of austerity and they are preparing to be resilient against those who protest, why can they not prepare for all the other issues I have raised today?

14:24

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on having secured and opened this debate with such a bravura performance. He is such a skilful and persuasive leader of opinion in your Lordships’ House. One of my most vivid parliamentary memories in a dozen years in this Chamber was his retort to a member of the Opposition who essayed a criticism of the Government’s flood plain policy, so the rationale of this debate is no surprise.

I shall pick up two things he said at the end of his speech. First, I would like to advise him in the context of the Treasury that I have been in gumboots down in the cellars of the Treasury where there is, in fact, a great deal of water. Some of it may have been moved since I was a Treasury Minister, but I do not think it is likely that it has all gone. Secondly, I have not read the piece which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, quoted about water cannon, but out of Northern Ireland experience, I can say that water cannon is a remarkably inflexible weapon. You have to have a particular domain if you wish to use it. I say that simply to inform the debate.

The noble Lord has given some of us, if not all of us, help in joining him in this debate by the wording of the Motion. My Oxford dictionaries are in Wiltshire, but my Chambers dictionary, which is here, defines the word “resilience” as,

“recoil: elasticity, physical or mental … [L. resilire, to leap back—salire, to leap.].

For the benefit of the Hansard writer I mention that that is the Latin infinitive for “to leap” and not Salieri as in Mozart.

My noble friend Lord Ridley will make a much better informed and more distinguished speech than I shall, just as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has done, and it is only the elasticity of the Motion that enables me to speak at all. My remarks will be microeconomic rather than macroeconomic, but after 24 years representing an inner London seat, I now no longer live here, but in the east-west Nadder valley in Wiltshire, which contains along its length road, rail and river, the rail being sensibly elevated so that the river causes most of its inconveniences to the roads. I am not proposing to dilate on climate change, although of course I recognise its relevance in this context on both sides of the argument, and I admire and applaud the surefootedness of those who have strong views on both sides of the divide.

In thanking the House of Lords Library for the admirable development of its policy of furnishing speakers in general debates with Library briefing, I will remark in passing that I daily read the Times backwards at breakfast, starting with cricket, then using as a stepping-stone to death, both obituaries and classified, the fascinating daily articles entitled “Weather” which the Times now has before proceeding to the stock market, leaving everything else to read at leisure after 10 o’clock at night. Our Library produced an excellent briefing for today, although I hope it is not going to make a habit of one feature in today’s briefing wherein the Select Committee’s examination of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mr Paterson, suddenly jumped without warning from page 7, in the final line of which badgers occurred twice, to page 11, on which deer appear in the second and third lines. Establishing the connection in this instance is relatively easy in terms of what has been recorded in the intervening four pages, and it may have the makings of an ingenious pencil-and-paper game late at night, but it later moves from page 12 to page 19, and some scintilla of forewarning might be helpful.

The value of the briefing, as of this debate, is the concentration on the long term, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, paid tribute. When in the 1970s, I was running a multinational firm in the private sector, I used to take a day off once a year to attend an annual seminar conducted by a futurological polymath from the Hudson Institute outside New York, whose erudition can be briefly indexed by his reply to a question about why the Japanese had settled occidentally more in Brazil than in any other country. He said: “I have always understood that it was because the Japanese found Portuguese easier to learn than any other European language”. At a time when manufacturing was beginning its long decline here, he reassured us that we were well prepared for post-industrial society by the extent of our superiority in education—especially higher education—government and health. I have spent the past 40 years admiring his percipience, but also wondering if we were making the most of our development in these particular salients.

I have also always regretted that constituency pressures in the Commons encourage MPs to enter the ranks of last-ditch defenders and protesters whenever small primary schools or elderly hospitals were past their sell-by dates while still dearly loved by constituents nearby. In this particular era, when communities are threatened by economic or climactic pressures, I can join the regrets of some that the big society has been less than wholly successful in catching on, but that is not a reason for the instincts of the big society not to be pursued by those who favour them. Indeed, on what is, appositely, the “ill wind” principle, flooding brings out the best in all of us in terms of mutual aid. I live in a hamlet, the population of which does not run to three figures, and which is sandwiched within the five miles that separate two National Health Service surgeries, one in a village of more than 600, and the other of more than 2,000. We use the former, which has a high elderly component but, simultaneously, perhaps because of its community vigour, a very low incidence of dementia. If good is best done by stealth, some of us pay our savings from freedom from prescription charges back into the practice’s coffers to be used for the good of local collective health. In the same way, rural parishes have the advantage of centuries-old charities into which, again, some can discreetly feed benefits which they do not need, the determination of need deriving, sensibly, from local personal knowledge.

An area, however, where I hope that we can improve, is actual performance knowledge among national charities. To take the current humanitarian tsunami, one can use the default option for sending one’s mite to the Disasters Emergency Committee for onward transmission to its underlying members. However, we do not, to my knowledge, have an equivalent of Which? in the charitable arena. It would mesh in its productivity component with Nesta’s estimate in the IPPR element in the Library briefing that if productivity growth from 1995 to 2007 were or had been the same in the UK public sector as in the private sector, the UK Government would be spending £63 billion less every year; although, of course, I acknowledge that the comparison is not like with like.

If I break my Trappist vow on climate change and allow that possible acute climate change in the Mediterranean may produce population transfer into Nordic countries, including ourselves, then attention to advanced Nordic practice elsewhere may well be worth early study. Before the wall came down in the 1989 detente, the population and the physical space in West Germany was exactly the same as ours. The reunion of Germany has taken it away from that equivalence and moved it in the direction of France. These are potential equations for us to address in the same category of long-term thinking as this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, also referred to the performance of local government. In what is presumably, not yet, but close to, the valedictory analysis of the Audit Commission of municipal data, I was encouraged by its favourable judgment on the clear majority of councils’ resilience, even if there were a handful of parameters which variably put the weaker councils in a minority from 10% to 30% in terms of their being able to cope with the unexpected. Their evidence was the more helpful, in that it effected comparisons between different categories of council. Since I noted that unitary councils were only buoyant and afloat by 53% to 47%, the latter being the highest figure where anxiety was registered, I must hope, as a Wiltshire resident, that we come in the former grouping. That said, the fact that nine out of 10 councils are regarded as well placed to deliver their budgets in 2013-14 gives us some short-term leeway.

As for the private sector, the Charities Aid Foundation reported last year that only one in 34 employees in Britain gave to charity through payroll giving in the prior year, although that is essentially a function of the fact that fewer than 8,500 of the UK’s 4.8 million employers offer their staff the opportunity to do so. However, 31% of employees said that they would be likely to give if the chance were afforded them, which would increase charitable giving by £175 million. Nearly two-thirds of employees believed that more employees would actively support charities at work if they were allowed to nominate a charity to support that year.

To end on a particularly resilient note, I understood orally this morning from the Charities Aid Foundation that, in global research, all things considered, a British subject was more likely to make a charitable donation, which I translate as being more likely to make a pledge, than an inhabitant of almost any other country. I am not going to turn this into a television quiz show, but some in your Lordships’ House may be surprised by the fact that our only superior is Burma.

14:35

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for being slightly briefer than the time he was allowed. I also congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for getting this debate, and for speaking so forcefully on it. Some of us, with not longer memories than that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, but with perhaps a more selective memory, of course remember the Rooker-Wise amendment back in the 1970s. Those of us who come from a certain tradition remember with a great deal of pride that he moved that amendment and the Government acted upon it.

I will make the debate a little broader than it is at present.

[Noble Lords]

Ha!

[Lord Maxton]

Well, not the debate; the debate is broad but the content so far has been limited. I am not going to talk about floods because, to be honest, I spent the period of the floods in Scotland where, although there were some floods, we did not suffer anything like as much. I spent the new year period on the Isle of Arran, where we have had worse new years than that.

We live in a society that is much changed and improved from the one that was there when the Labour Party—and my own family goes back a long way in the Labour movement—was formed. We ought, on this side of the House, to take a certain amount of pride in what we have achieved in the past 100 years, because we have achieved a great deal. However, one thing above all that we have achieved, which is where resilience comes in, is that there has never in those 100 years been an armed revolution, an uprising, in this country. I sometimes say that, historically, the only party in this country which has ever suggested an armed uprising is the Conservative Party, which in 1913-14 suggested that Ulster would be right if it rose up against the British state and armed itself and fought. Anyway, we have not had a revolution.

One of the reasons that we have not had a revolution is that the Labour Party has been democratic. We have believed in achieving our aims through democracy and not through some form of uprising or revolution. In my own city of Glasgow in 1919, there was a threat; people observed it as a threat and the Government of the day thought that it was a threat, but it never was—there was never a chance of there being a Russian revolution in this country. We must be aware of that fact, but we must also be aware that the world has changed very dramatically and we have helped that change. We live in a world which is changing very fast indeed; it has changed and will continue to do so. It is our job, in political circles, to manage the change that is going on. It used to be when I joined that our job in the Labour Party was to change society; now society is changing, and it is our job to manage that change for the benefit of those we represent.

There are two areas where we are not changing fast enough. One is in our democratic state itself. We are not developing our democracy fast enough and adapting our democracy to the changes. This building itself is representative of that fact. The building is falling down: everybody says it, and what do we do? We are talking about mending it, repairing it, changing it and staying here. This building was built before the motor car was invented, before television, before radio, before computers: it was built for carriages and for a class society that no longer exists, I hope. So why do we stay here? Why do we not build a brand new building for the 21st century somewhere else, designed for the technological revolution that has taken place, where we can genuinely carry out our democratic government processes, while we spend the money to turn this place into a high-class museum based around democratic principles? That is what we ought to be doing.

More importantly, we ought to look at how we carry out our democracy. The Minister will know well what I am about to say. The idea of voting in a general election by going to a school and putting a cross on a piece of paper with a pencil is absurd to many of our young people, for whom mobile technology is part and parcel of their life. It is one reason, only one, why our young people are put off the whole democratic process. They feel it has nothing to do with them. They vote on “Strictly Come Dancing” or “The X Factor” using their mobile phones. I am not suggesting that that is how we proceed. I know well, because my sons have admitted it, that they voted five or six times in some of those contests: there is no checking on it.

If we had some form of ID, some form of smart card technology, to say, “This is how you can vote, as long as you can prove who you are, and you can only vote once”, surely that is the way forward. It is a way to attract young people, a way of both stopping fraud in our electoral system and expanding the numbers of those who are able to vote. One would no longer be tied to going to a school. One would be able to vote in a wide range of places. Eventually, one would be able to vote in one’s own home and therefore the number of people who would be able to vote in general elections should—and will, in my view—increase quite considerably. It would also lead to a greater respect for politics among the young.

I have to ask both those on the Benches opposite and those on our own Benches to accept that the compulsory introduction of some form of smart card identification is going to be absolutely necessary in a modern world. We cannot go on avoiding this issue. Someone once described it to me as “a King Canute issue”, but I think that that is very unfair on King Canute as he said that it will have to come back. At some point we will have to have some form of identification, not just for electoral purposes, but it will be essential for the poor and those whom we represent in the Labour movement. All of us carry some form of ID: our parliamentary pass, our bank card, our passport, whatever it might be. It is the poor who lose out all the time from not having some form of identification which recognises them—through their social security or whatever it might be. We need to have some form of ID card compulsorily introduced, and I hope that our Labour Party will have that as part of its manifesto in 2015.

I turn lastly to the issue of education. I accept that my own experience is in a different education system, in Scotland, but I have a general point. It is absurd that in this day and age, when nearly all the world’s knowledge, philosophy and ideas are available on my tablet—here it is—or one even smaller than this, that we have a Secretary of State and a Government talking about returning to the basic principles of numeracy and literacy, sitting children in school, learning by rote. What sort of world is he living in? It is absurd. We ought to be ensuring that every child has access to learning, teaching them or showing them how to learn.

I would not dream of going to the library and looking up a fact. If I want a fact I look it up on this tablet. If I want to know what a philosopher thought, I look it up on this. I do not go running to a library or expect a teacher to have to tell me; I want to learn. Therefore our basic philosophy in education should be that education is about learning; literacy, numeracy and the other things are tools by which people learn. If they become redundant, as the wringer in the wash-house has become redundant, as all sort of tools have become redundant, then so be it.

I have not picked up a book in two years; I read a Kindle or I read on the tablet. I can read anything I want, and I can get it in two and a half minutes. I do not have to go to a bookshop and look at the books; I get it straightaway. Why is this not being made more readily available to our children so that they, too, can get this benefit in full? Many of them do; they are the middle-class children, the children of those of us who know how to manipulate and use the electronic systems. We must look to turn our education system towards learning, rather than teaching, towards children being able to use electronic devices to learn from, rather than all the time concentrating on the so-called basic skills that they need.

I finish by making this plea again. Please, please, please, we have to have an ID card. Please make sure that it is introduced as soon as possible.

14:48

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, who made a very powerful speech. He has convinced me of most of his ideas just by bullying me incessantly on every occasion we meet, but he has not yet convinced me about identity cards. However, the debate can continue. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is a wise parliamentarian. I have followed his career and, if he thinks that this is an important subject, that is good enough for me. His experience in government puts him in a very good position to take an overview and we owe him a debt for the way he introduced his debate. I confess that I share his sense of frustration and urgency and I hope that this debate will start bringing some much needed focus to this very important subject.

To lighten his reading load a little, I suggest something for him apart from reading his erudite philosopher. I picked up a very interesting book by an American professor, Tim Morton, entitled Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology After the End of the World. It is about ignoring knowns, and he makes a very important point. He describes “hyperobjects”, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, certainly identified. I have not finished it yet, so I do not know if there is a happy ending, but I would recommend it to colleagues for reading in future.

I suddenly became interested in the subject in autumn last year, when the Grangemouth Ineos dispute took place. Noble Lords will remember that it was a pretty tense moment north of the border. There was a lot of trade union and party-political infighting, and it had a resolution that was, thankfully, reasonably sensible. I was astonished to find that one company was in control of 85% of the petrol distribution in Scotland, a private company with some quite headstrong, controversial directors, who were making personal decisions. I think that it was all part of the war game. I am not completely naive; I think that there was quite a lot of tic-tac going on in the press to gain advantage in the dispute with the trade union. Some 800 jobs were at risk, and that is a very serious blow. But I was completely surprised to learn that North Sea oil could effectively be closed down for swathes of the northern part of the United Kingdom, simply because of the local difficulties of an individual commercial company.

It made me think that we need to think more carefully and deeply about how fast society is changing. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, is right about that. The rate of change that we have in this country is often underestimated, and we do not think about it carefully enough. In particular, I am concerned about the long-time effect of ageing; it is good, because we are all going to live to 120, and I am making plans. But the resilience of us individually, physically, will change society really dramatically, not only in the dependency ratio in terms of creation of wealth to pay for pensions but the ability to be able to contribute to your local community. I have lived in the same village for 30 years; I used to play football with my neighbours, but we now have book clubs and meet for interest evenings. Intellectually, everybody is as sharp as a knife, but we all have new knees or shoulders, or whatever—and God bless the National Health Service, which provides these things. But with the best will in the world, if something dramatic and untoward happened, the physical ability that we had when I first came to live where I do has gone. That is a really significant change, which we have not bottomed out yet.

On top of climate change and the global integration of society, specialisation is the order of the day and you all know a little bit about the life you live but everything else is done by everyone else, so if a bit of it goes wrong, the resilience of the system fails. The rate of change is something that we must be concerned about in the course of this debate.

Politics does not handle this particularly well. That is a statement of the obvious, but the timeframe is too long for normal party politics. I am in favour of party politics; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, by the way, that we need to invest some money in party politics. My 32 year-old son has raised exactly that question about the pencil cross once every five years as being absolutely useless in terms of what he wants to contribute. He is right about that. But the political system considers capital expenditure as an easy target; if there is ever any pressure on any budget, the first thing that goes is capital expenditure—and nobody cares, because they do not really know about it. I am getting much more concerned about the effect of continually salami-slicing long-term plans; you do not see it from month to month or from year to year, but over the distance, you suddenly find that 85% of the petrol distribution in Scotland is in the hands of one man. The political process needs to waken up to that.

It is also a bad thing that it is so cross-departmental. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has had experience of many departments, and he is in a very good position to have an overview of this. The Civil Service is still in silos, and society does not live in silos as much as it used to. The Cabinet Office does its best, and it gets high marks for doing the important work that it is doing with big data, and trying to stay abreast of technological issues. But somebody needs to give me confidence that in central government there is somebody like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—there may be a job for him—who stands back and can say, “In 15 or 20 years’ time we will be thinking of whatever it is”. We have the expertise here; we have the Meteorological Office, for example, which is a world expert at looking at climate change as it affects the weather. We need to think about how the political process deals with this long-term problem, which is becoming more and more of a problem.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was absolutely right to mention housing. If we got a housing policy that was worth the name and were systematic and careful, it would transform the lives of many of our citizens. It would certainly start to seriously attack the housing benefit budget, which is just lining the pockets of landlords, and that is in no one’s long-term interest.

The Cabinet Office is the place where this whole issue is brigaded. It would help me if it could try to co-ordinate across departmental budgets the resources that are in play here. I do not blame Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State, for getting slightly blindsided about what was actually being spent on flooding, because some of it is private and some of it is public. It is an easy thing to do. But I have no sense of what is happening in the pockets of the other departmental budgets, which are dealing with long-term planning for resilience, climate change and the rest, and I do not know if the figure exists. I am well aware of the national risk register, which I remind noble Lords was drawn up in 2008. I know that it has been updated since then, but 2008 was a different world in the context of how we live these days. So I have a plea to my noble friend on the Front Bench, if he can do it today. It would certainly make me sleep more easily in my bed at night if I had more of a sense of what across the piece central government is applying to resources. I am talking not just of financial resources but of the capacity of experts and the scientists in the labs. What is the global spend across central government that deals with this issue? We should know about that, and about the professional experts that we can call on to deal with these crises, as we must in future.

The policy prima facie looks okay. I have looked at some of the documentation, and there is a spread of interest over the phase of prevention, mitigation response and aftermath, with regard to implementation. All those areas are covered and should be covered. However, on the resources issue, how much operational weight is there behind policy? The consultation that was conducted in Scotland found favour with most of the respondents, but people did not actually believe that the money was behind the policy to make it work in the way set out in the documentation, and we should think about that more carefully.

I want to talk for a moment or two about technology. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, knows more about this than I do, but he is right to say that technology is quintessentially important in education. I want to take that argument further in terms of what it can do in the event of untoward, unexpected environmental crises. There is what is happening with cloud computing and the extra services that are available that are internet-based, and the mobile nature of devices. If you have an internet connection, you can speak to anybody in the world at any time, day or night. I compliment the Cabinet Office for the excellent work that it is doing, allowing big data to be made available to everybody, open source, so that they can take advantage of that wherever they are. I am told that in a few years’ time, 75% of all government information will be online, which is an astonishing change. That is a resource that we have never had before.

Finally, and most importantly in the context of this debate, social media give people the capacity to interconnect in a way that we have never known before. We are not taking enough advantage of that. For example, if my village were suddenly cut off for some reason, we have enough communal knowledge about computing to be able both to communicate within the village community, and to tell the emergency centre, our local government and our regional government headquarters exactly what is going on.

Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, knows, devices will soon be wearable. We will all have Google Glass, and go around wearing specs with cameras on them. I wait for the day when the Clerk of the Parliaments comes in and brings the House to order wearing his Google Glass device, because they will be able to stream that to Hong Kong. No doubt there are people in Hong Kong who would like to know what he is looking at. I am being facetious; none the less, that does make my point. If I am in the middle of a crisis in my village and I want to know what is happening, I can just switch my specs on. We need to invest in that, in the capacity and in the confidence building for people who will happily volunteer in their own communities and try to help their neighbours in an adverse situation. I think that if that is properly planned and worked out, we can transform our ability to communicate in real time.

Feedback is really important. What really cheeses people off in a flood is not being able to get through on the telephone line—and even when they can, getting the message, “We’ve got no information.” That is unacceptable. We should not allow public service contracts to be let to anybody, whether energy providers or anybody else, unless there is a clause in the contract saying something like, “In extremis, you must keep some percentage of resilience available—and you’re not getting your money unless you can convince the Civil Service people letting the contracts that you will run call centres or technological communication systems that will at least say to people, ‘I know who you are. I don’t know what’s going on but I’ll get back to you, and you can rely on that’—and it happens”.

Something else that we do not do well enough is the wash-up procedures and the feedback after the event—the aftermath. So there is a lot to do. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. This is a very important subject, and I hope that the House will return to it in future. I also hope that the political process will get a better handle on the real future risks that we face.

15:02

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this debate, and on the ingenuity with which he and others have stretched the description to cover all sorts of subjects. It is turning into a bit of a Rorschach test, whereby we can all read our own preferences into the shape of the topic of the debate. I have not followed the good example set by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, of looking “resilience” up in the dictionary; I wish I had. I was thinking of that word as meaning a combination of adaptation and sustainability—in other words, the extent to which we can adapt sustainably to changes that are likely to happen.

Over the past three centuries, the UK has probably been one of the most resilient countries on the planet—economically, socially, politically, militarily, scientifically and intellectually. We have been written off again and again, yet we have bounced back rather well. Indeed, yesterday’s unemployment figures suggest that we are bouncing back relatively well at the moment, although admittedly that is in a much shorter-term context.

Why is that? Essentially, it is because of two factors about this country. One is trade; the other is innovation. The fact that we have been connected to the world means that we have been interdependent on the world and we have had mutual support from the world, in various ways, over many centuries. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. History teaches that reliance on trade, far from making countries more vulnerable, actually reduces risk and increases resilience. A good example of that is world trade in food, which means that a bad harvest, such as we had last year, does not result in famine, or even in hunger, because we are able to adjust through the price mechanism throughout the world.

In the 1690s, there was a series of bad harvests in France and 15% of the entire population starved to death, despite a famous victory in which Jean Bart managed to recapture a convoy of 120 grain ships from Norway that had been captured by the Dutch—even that was not enough to prevent mass starvation. There was no such mass starvation in this country, just 25 short miles away. In those days, there was not enough trade to equalise the supply of food around the world.

Resilience means getting access to products, services and ideas wherever they are invented. That is what world trade does for us—and, conversely, it also gets markets for our own ideas, services and products. It is no accident that countries that cut themselves off from trade suffer terrible shortages and famines. We only have to look at North Korea for a contemporary example. Another point that I want to make, which relates to something that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, is that resilience also includes not borrowing vast sums from our grandchildren, if we can help it. That, essentially, is what we have been doing with our deficit spending.

The other element of resilience is that it requires innovation. If we in Britain cease to innovate, we will become far more vulnerable to global problems. There was a good example of that this week, when Paolo Scaroni, the chief executive of Eni, the Italian petrochemical company, said that the shale gas revolution in the US was not just a massive competitive advantage to the US, but,

“a real emergency for Europe”.

By that he meant that, because of the falling price of energy in the United States and the use of gas as a feedstock there, chemical, steel and manufacturing industries are bailing out of Europe and rapidly rebuilding in the United States. That is a real threat to us, unless we can join in by lowering our energy prices here. That is resilience for them, because of their innovation over there.

While I am on the topic of energy—and here I should declare my interest in various forms of fossil fuels and other forms of energy—I want to make the point that resilience in the face of weather means keeping the lights on when the wind blows too strongly. That is a pretty obvious point, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made. But it also means keeping the lights on when the wind does not blow at all—and that, of course, is a risk we are running by trying to rely too much on windmills for electricity. That is the very opposite of resilience, and puts us at the mercy of the weather as we were in the Middle Ages.

By the way, it is weather, not climate, that we are dealing with this winter. There is no need to take my word for that; a paper published this week by 17 international scientists from five different countries in the Hydrological Sciences Journal, entitled “Flood risk and climate change: global and regional perspectives”, says:

“It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades … Blaming climate change for flood losses makes flood losses a global issue that appears to be out of the control of regional or national institutions. The scientific community needs to emphasize that the problem of flood losses is mostly about what we do on or to the landscape and that will be the case for decades to come”.

So what we are doing with drainage and development is far more significant in terms of the effect on flooding.

It is worth pointing out that blaming climate change when there is a weather disaster has become rather an itch for politicians. We saw this with superstorm Sandy in the United States, when Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Christie were able to cover up what was perhaps a lack of preparedness by saying, “Well, it’s all to do with climate change.” I congratulate not only the Prime Minister but my right honourable kinsman-in-law the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for not doing that in connection with the recent floods.

In November 1703, 400 people died in a bad storm that flooded the Somerset Levels. That week, 700 ships were smashed in the Pool of London, 1,500 sailors died when 13 men-of-war went down, the lead was torn off the roof of Westminster Abbey, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells was killed in his bed by a falling chimney. That is less resilient. We can survive storms much better these days because of the adaptations we have made and the sustainable resilience we have added to our society. Globally, someone’s probability of dying as a result of a drought, a flood or a storm is 98% lower than it was in the 1920s. That is not because weather has got less dangerous; it is because globally, people have better transport, better food, better accommodation and better services generally.

While I am on that topic, both here and globally we use about 65% less land to produce as much food as we did 50 years ago, so let us not forget that fossil fuels have made this possible. Without fossil fuels, crop-land would have to increase from about 12% to about 30% of the planet and land transformation—that is to say, the cutting down of forests to provide grazing land and so on—from 43% to 61%. It is fertilisers, pesticides and tractors that have made it possible to keep the resilient wild ecosystems that we so love.

I was at a meeting yesterday where the problems of crop protection were discussed. The wet summer of 2012 was much talked about, where an explosion of fungi and slugs devastated much of the wheat and rape crops—I once again declare an interest as the owner of a ruined harvest in that summer. The chemicals that farmers use to fight these pests and other forms of invasions are getting less and less effective. Resistance is growing rapidly. There is nothing particularly surprising about that; it has happened ever since we developed crop protection systems and is a perennial problem not only in conventional farming but in organic farming. However, today the pipeline of new products is drying up, which was the concern of the speaker yesterday. Innovation in crop protection is failing, and that is making us less resilient. We will face another wet summer at some point when fungicides will not work well enough and the crop will be badly damaged.

Why is this happening? One of the big reasons is because innovators have their hands tied behind their back. The European Commission is causing the withdrawal of about 25% of the currently available active agrochemicals, largely through using really rather feeble excuses about the hazards that those chemicals have. This is causing farmers to go back to older and less effective agrochemicals, and to lose more crop. At the same time safer, more effective and more organic alternatives, such as genetic modification, are being deliberately and directly prevented. I am sorry to sound so uncharacteristically pessimistic. Normally, I am an optimist but I am encouraged because the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, tells me that she will be optimistic today, so I will leave that to her.

The precautionary principle is behind a lot of these problems because, as presently interpreted, particularly in Brussels and Whitehall, it counts the risks of innovation but not the risks of not innovating. Funnily enough, this point was made in the previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. He said that not taking a risk is also a risk, which was kind of Rumsfeldian in its pithiness. So globally, we must embrace change in this country if we are to be resilient. The least resilient and most dangerous thing we can do is to stop innovating and leave it to others. The world is a dynamic place: as the philosopher Heraclitus said, you cannot step in the same river twice as nothing endures but change. That is true even if the river comes through your front door. Can my noble friend the Minister please stress that, wherever possible, future resilience depends crucially on innovation?

15:13

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is turning out to be an extremely wide-ranging debate, as some of us thought it might be. I started by pitying the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the range of issues that he would have to address in his reply, but I am beginning to realise that he may be able to pick and choose to such an extent that he can stick to whatever brief he was provided with at the outset. The debate is so wide-ranging that I should probably declare a number of interests: my co-chairmanship of the All-Party Group on Policing and my role in the All-Party Group on Homeland Security; my chairmanship of the National Trading Standards Board; and my chairmanship of the advisory board on the City Security and Resilience Networks.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his barnstorming introduction to this debate, highlighting the sheer range of issues where our resilience is under question and for which the Government must either have some responsibility or be taking some responsibility. This debate is about the fundamental duty of the nation state to its citizens: to protect their security and secure their well-being.

I was also grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for picking up an issue that I raised in the House yesterday about the Thames barrier. When it was first opened 30 years ago, the barrier was raised twice in its first four years. In the latest four years, it has been raised 24 times, which is 12 times the frequency and far more than ever originally envisaged. Yet the Government are happy to agree to reschedule its replacement from 2035 to 2070. I am sure that your Lordships will be reassured that the Front Bench opposite has this matter in hand. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, will himself visit to see that the Thames barrier is in fact resilient until 2070. We are all reassured by that news and look forward to him reporting back as to what state he finds the Thames barrier in when he gets there. However, resilience has to be an essential component of the state’s duty to its citizens. How well can society cope with and recover from adverse events? A breach of the Thames barrier would be a pretty adverse, if not catastrophic, event.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. One of our tasks on that committee is to consider the extent to which the national security strategy addresses all of the issues that it should, and whether the Government have in place appropriate responses to threats to the nation’s security and well-being. Much of this inevitably relates to our international standing. The extent to which the United Kingdom can deal effectively with economic changes is a potential consequence of that international standing and, highly contentious though it may be, the relationship of this country with Europe is of critical importance. Our Government’s willingness to give up their ability to influence events and policies across Europe by their constant hostility to all things European, their willingness to alienate our European partners and their happiness to foster uncertainty about our future relationship with the European Union is inevitably damaging to our national interest. I am sure that the Minister will want to defend the Government’s position on all those matters.

What is not clear is whether the Government have engaged in any serious consideration of the consequences of the endless concessions being made to the Eurosceptic tail of the Conservative wing of this coalition. Later this afternoon, your Lordships will debate the implications of the ill thought through opt-out of the EU police and criminal justice measures. Even though there is clear evidence that these measures are necessary to enable our police to tackle cross-border crime and protect our citizens, Eurosceptics are in practice undermining the security of the nation which they claim to be protecting.

This is part of a pattern: a blindness to national security and national resilience, and a worrying insouciance in all sorts of areas. For example, there is increasing foreign ownership of essential parts of our critical national infrastructure. Indeed, there is no evidence of any serious debate about what should or should not be red-lined. What is the level of our dependence on foreign powers in respect of our ports, our airports, our water, our telecoms or our energy? Do the Government care about any of those? What would they be prepared to see under foreign ownership, or is there something somewhere which the Government are not prepared to see sold to foreign Governments or foreign companies?

Let us talk about energy. Is our energy infrastructure sufficiently resilient against, for example, an electromagnetic pulse, whether delivered as a result of a solar flare or a deliberate attack? An intentional attack launched using a Scud missile from a small ship offshore, which could then be scuttled to make attribution difficult, and with that missile detonating a small nuclear device 25 miles above our land, would trigger an electromagnetic pulse over an area with a 100-mile radius. This would have the effect, irrespective of any other consequences, of disabling electronic equipment and destroying the cores of generators and transformers in the electricity grid.

Exceptional solar activity can produce similar effects. In March 1989, the Quebec hydropower network was disrupted by solar flares, causing a voltage collapse, a failure of transmission lines and a nine-hour blackout. That same solar storm led to a transformer failure in New Jersey and 200 less severe incidents across the United States. Effects like that happen on average every seven years, in line with sunspot activity, with much larger impacts resulting from more occasional massive solar storms such as those in 1859 or 1921. Arguably, if we do the maths, one is due. Where is the planning to combat this and to protect our electricity grid against those sorts of electromagnetic pulse interventions?

Is our energy infrastructure sufficiently resilient against a cyberattack? The Wall Street Journal recently reported senior US intelligence concerns about both Russian and Chinese attempts to map and put in place arrangements to control the US electricity grid. The Chinese, apparently operating from what is described as,

“a rather unimposing building in Shanghai”,

have been equipped to do just that. The former Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has said that a cyberattack on the US power network is,

“a matter of when and not if”.

What are the Government doing to protect the control systems of our energy supply and other utilities against attack or disruption?

More generally, where is our Government’s response to safeguard the country’s longer-term energy supplies, for example in response to Russian moves over oil pipelines and the increasing fragility of the Middle East? Closer to home, how concerned are we, or should we be, about foreign ownership of energy infrastructure in this country or about foreign powers controlling nuclear waste on UK soil?

This vulnerability on energy is a reminder that, only a few years ago, MI5 was warning that Britain was only four meals away from anarchy. This may be why, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reported from today’s Daily Telegraph, investment in water cannon is seen as so urgent. That is how quickly MI5 assessed that Britain could be reduced to large-scale disorder, including looting and rioting, in the event of serious disruption to the critical national infrastructure and, in particular, the food distribution network. We had widespread rioting and looting only a couple of years ago, of course, without disruption of the food supply network. These are matters that should be addressed properly by Government. I am not sure that the solution is water cannon, although we will have an opportunity to debate that in this Chamber in a week or two.

More fundamentally—this relates to the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—how secure is Britain’s food supply? Other countries are buying up farmland around the world to safeguard their food supplies. Have our Government considered the consequences of this? Are we considering the same? If not, what is being done to safeguard our position and the security of our food supplies?

Are we ready for other forms of threat to the food supply, such as volcanic eruptions with severe effusions of poisonous gases? Have the Government considered the implications for food security of something like the 1783 Laki eruption in Iceland that pumped 14 cubic kilometres—think of the scale of that—of basalt lava and vast clouds of hydrofluoric acid and sulphur dioxide into the air, leading to a drop in global temperatures, crop failures in Europe, droughts in India and the deaths of 6 million people? The 2010 eruption that disrupted flights for six days was as nothing as compared to that. So what contingency plans are in place for a major volcanic eruption with that degree of impact on our food supplies, air travel and everything else?

And are we doing enough to protect food quality? We had the horsemeat scandal, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to. That was not, on that occasion, a major risk to public health, but it was a wake-up call for concerns about the food supply chain and the need for adequate monitoring. Yet local authority trading standards have already faced a 20% reduction, with much larger cuts in the pipeline in many parts of the country. Where is concern about protecting the interests of the citizen there?

Of course, all local authority services have been cut and much of that has a consequence on society and its resilience. Moving from food to the other end of the digestive cycle, if I may, one in seven public toilets have closed in the past three years as a result of cuts in government grants. In some large cities, such as Liverpool, there are no public facilities at all. The consequences for the elderly, in particular, are severe. Many of them may choose to stay at home rather than risk being caught short. It is hardly a vision of a resilient society if old people feel that they cannot go out because of the cutbacks imposed by this Government.

Regulatory and other services have been cut. Regulatory services have been cut as part of a drive to reduce the burdens on business. Is this really protecting the citizen?

What about the police service? Morale is at an all-time low, police numbers have been cut around the country and neighbourhood policing is disappearing. Ministers are contributing almost gleefully in a collapse in public trust. Why, for example, were Government Ministers so silent following the inquest verdict into the shooting of Mark Duggan? Where were the Home Office Ministers on radio and television saying that the verdict of a jury who had heard months of evidence in that case should be respected and that the police sometimes have to make difficult decisions—that may, with the wonderful benefit of hindsight, turn out to be wrong—to protect the lives of bystanders? Is it really in the public interest to run down our police leaders and our police service, as this Government have done? Where is the resilience in that? Our police will be the first responders when things go wrong and we need them to maintain public order, to intervene to save lives and to protect the public.

Is this not a Government who have forgotten what being a Government is supposed to be about? A Government should protect its citizens and put the resilience of our society first. That is what is missing. There is no coherence in what the Government are doing. There is no overall strategy as far as many of these issues are concerned.

15:27

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for securing this debate and for his wide-ranging introduction, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, suggests that we can talk about almost anything. Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps the fact that we can talk about a very wide range of issues this afternoon will challenge the way in which we all tend to think in silos and fail to link up our thinking on a range of issues. Perhaps we need to return to the age of the polymath. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, has the equipment to enable him to become one of those renewed polymaths in our society.

I return to the subject of floods. On Sunday I was standing above the damaged sea wall at Whitley Bay, watching the high tide submerging it again and reflecting on the costs that that would mean for the borough of North Tyneside. That reminded me of the sheer power of water. It is no accident that the Psalms, from which we choose our prayers here, emphasise that power when they want to describe nature’s devastation and the need to combat it, for example:

“The waves of the sea are mighty, and rage horribly”,

or, from Psalm 46, that I used today:

“Though the waters thereof rage and swell”.

Society has always recognised the need to combat the destruction caused by water, and to do so coherently.

This winter, we have expressed our concern for those who have suffered, particularly in the southern river basins—the Thames, the Brue in Somerset and the Severn, for example. In the autumn we reeled from the effects of the east coast floods. In west Yorkshire, we know the power of Pennine streams, bringing havoc to Hebden Bridge, Sowerby Bridge and other places well known to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, yesterday spoke of the response to the latest flooding and gave details of the way in which the authorities are responding. That was welcome.

Yet I do not yet sense a national and coherent policy to respond to natural calamities. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed to the way in which we have not got our agricultural policy working with our policy on calamities over issues such as planting trees and preserving green areas. We tend to go for a piecemeal approach and to patch up, rather than establish national criteria to respond to future challenges, wherever they may occur. In doing so, we often set one part of our country against another—“Why are they being helped when we are not?”.

These issues need to be set in the context of climate change, despite the Trappist vow of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, over this subject. Our response to climate change needs to be linked with our practical dealing with calamity. I listened hard to and respect what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said about the distinction between weather and climate. He is right; when we naively start to blame climate change for particular problems in the weather, that is clearly much too simplistic. However, given the way in which we are thinking this afternoon by bringing together our thoughts on a wide range of issues, the link between weather and climate change needs to be explored a good deal more than it has been so far. Scientists are working on that. They do not seem yet to have reached a point where they can make specific links, but that work nevertheless needs to continue. The climate change initiatives seem to have flagged over the past two or three years. Unless we respond to the need to reduce our and the world’s carbon footprint, we shall continue to place sticking plasters where damage is caused.

Therefore, the Government need to make it clear that their climate change emphases are a response both to the practical problems that we face and to the problems that the world is going to face over the next century and beyond. We need in particular adequate successors to the millennium goals, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to those goals. However, I wish that the climate change proposals were more strongly emphasised by the Government and linked in to our dealing with flooding and tidal surges, now and in the future. They need to be part of a single strategy that also includes green energy, rural-proofing, transport issues—we have considered those a little in this debate—as well as issues involving the food chain, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, referred in the previous debate, and which are crucial to our future as a nation and to the whole world.

We need this vision for the sake of our children and their children. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised the question of whether there were going to be enough school places for our grandchildren over the coming years. I can offer him the support of the Church of England, its dioceses and their education department, which are providing an increase in the number of primary school places, working along with local authorities and academies to grow the size of primary schools and, where necessary, opening new schools that are fully equipped with the technological equipment that children need. It is our children and grandchildren who will suffer if we do not take action.

We have become almost immune to Bangladeshi floods, the spread of the Sahara and the Philippines tornado. They disappeared from our screens within a week or so. The generosity of the people of this country is immense when they are asked to respond to need. We need to channel that generosity much more effectively into a coherent, long-term strategy that includes climate issues and their effect on our future. My basic question to the Government is: what plans do they have to explain the importance of tackling climate change as a response both to current tragedies and the future welfare of our country and our world?

This is my final contribution to your Lordships’ deliberations because I retire next week. I just wanted to say thank you for the help and colleagueship that I have received, both from those who believe that there should be Bishops in this House and those who do not. It has been a privilege to work with noble Lords and to benefit from the immense experience and expertise of this House, in both the careful examination of legislation and the high quality and variety of debates such as this. I wish the House well in all its future work.

15:36

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I am honoured and delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate and we all wish him every happiness in his retirement, because he has made a major contribution in his service to this House. We wish him well.

Having spent almost 16 years in the other place, I am nevertheless wary about importing the systems, practices and mechanisms of the House of Commons into your Lordships’ House. However, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rooker on his ingenuity in securing this debate because, as I listened to the many and varied contributions, it reminded me of a good, old-fashioned House of Commons end-of-term adjournment debate. We should be grateful to my noble friend for securing such a debate which would be no bad thing to have from time to time.

The Government must be aware of the remarkable challenges that the voluntary sector has faced in recent years. Its endurance and commitment towards public service, in the face of economic pressures and rising need, has proven unshakeable. The voluntary sector has faced the economic challenge of increasing costs combined, like all public services, with an acute pressure on funding. Simultaneously, these same challenges have led to an increasing need for the services provided by charities. Charities are reporting increasing demand and severity of circumstances. This is concurrent with an unprecedented threat to their ability to respond.

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations described 2012 as its “annus horribilis”, and said that in that year voluntary organisations faced a,

“triple whammy of increased demands, rising costs and an unprecedented fall”,

in income. Over the course of this Parliament, this Government are planning to cut more than £5 billion in funding to charities. More than two-thirds of all spending cuts will fall on the 25% most deprived areas of our country. It is in these same communities that the country’s charities are working to maintain civil society and increasingly providing a backstop and safety net to the welfare system.

In the face of this triple whammy, the response of charities has been remarkable. In order to meet changing needs, many charities have diversified and begun operating in new and creative ways. A prime example is Caritas Anchor House, a residential and skills training centre working with homeless people, not far from here in the East End of London. During the past few years demand for its help has increased, while partner organisations have seen major reductions in their funding. Nevertheless, in the last quarter of 2013 alone it helped 34 people into employment and 17 residents into independent living.

Like many charities, it has increasingly partnered with the public sector. Anchor House has set up a complex needs team, working in partnership with local health services to support people’s well-being. Throughout the United Kingdom such partnering is enabling charities to signpost vulnerable people towards assistance, and help them to navigate their way through the system to access the help which they are owed and desperately need.

In recent years the voluntary sector in the United Kingdom has witnessed not only increased demand for help, but the severity of cases has also increased. One of the greatest tragedies of recent years has been the resurgence of food banks in 21st-century Britain. My successor as MP for Islwyn, Chris Evans, recently told me that when he visited a food bank in the constituency, he could not get in because of the large crowd outside. In the past 12 months alone the Trussell Trust experienced a 170% increase in the number of those turning to it for help. This is on the back of equally dramatic increases in the preceding years.

It is reported that 43% of all those referred to food banks have been sent there because of benefit stoppages, and a further 30% are sent there because of benefit delays. Charities have been forced to respond to this horrific new challenge, which is in large measure a consequence of this Government’s callous treatment of those who rely on the welfare system. These are poor people, whom some Ministers and some in the media portray as liars, cheats and scroungers. Charities have been required to become a safety net for this Government’s actions. In England and Wales jobcentres are now routinely referring people to charity-run food banks.

The response of charities, donors, and volunteers to this intolerable crisis has been inspirational. Caritas Diocese of Salford is now providing good quality, healthy lunches to 200 people every day. It is also working to address the causes that have forced people to rely on them for the bare necessity of a good meal. We in this House have perhaps already enjoyed a good meal today, or certainly will before the end of the day. We take it for granted.

Caritas Salford has become a beacon for sanction support, helping those who lose their benefits or have them delayed. This involves providing advice and accompanying people to meetings with jobcentre officials. Like so many charities, Caritas Diocese of Salford is directly addressing the challenges which have forced people to rely on it for food.

The resilience of British charities has been severely tested in recent years. In 2010-11, 2,000 charities in England had their funding cut or withdrawn altogether. We should not forget that the two poorest and most disadvantaged groups in Britain are at the extreme ends of the age spectrum: the elderly and the young. Charities caring for and supporting children and young people were particularly severely affected. These charities were already doing incredible work with some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom voluntary sector has continued to respond compassionately to need wherever it has encountered it.

In recent years there has been a marked increase in the severity and amount of help that charities have been asked to provide. The challenge of reduced resources and increased demand has been met with care and an acute concern to address the causes of distress. I believe that all of us in this House know of the resilience of the voluntary sector in meeting the needs of vulnerable people in incredibly challenging times. I am sure that all noble Lords in this debate want to send one simple message to the Government: future funding to charities should not be regarded as a soft target for spending cuts. The voluntary sector has been resilient in compassionately meeting the needs of the UK’s most vulnerable citizens, in the face of tough economic times and severe pressure on public services.

The voluntary sector has always been instrumental in providing low-level services to vulnerable people which the public sector cannot provide. One example is the voluntary sector’s help for people with autism. Tragically, 82% of adults with autism report that they have not spoken to anyone outside their household for days, and 42% for weeks. These people often struggle to receive all the help and support they need from social services. Vital low-level services, such as befriending or social skills training, are often provided by the voluntary sector, and this is of great benefit.

In my experience, which includes 20 years as a councillor and 16 years in the Commons as well as now being in your Lordships’ House, no matter how good Governments are or local government becomes at providing a range of services to our people, without the voluntary sector the quality of life of millions of our fellow citizens would not be what it is today. We owe the voluntary sector a great debt, and it is time to pay up.

15:45

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Rooker on enabling such a broad debate to take place on this most interesting of topics. I also extend my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds for his contribution. I am sad that it is his final contribution, but I am sure that everyone will congratulate him on making such an important contribution to this debate. As was alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, today I will adopt a fairly upbeat approach to this topic. There is much that the UK can feel very happy and proud about in relation to its resilience in adapting to the changes that are coming.

We have a predominantly knowledge and service-based economy. This means that we are at the cutting edge of new ideas and can adapt quickly to changing circumstances. As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, the pace of that change appears to be quickening, and that can make our ability to plan incredibly difficult. However, given some of the assets that we have and the nature of our economy, I think that we are well placed to be able to do that. It is a diverse economy.

Much concern is expressed in the media and elsewhere about our potential overreliance on financial services and the financial sector. However, official statistics show that the contribution to the economy of that sector, in terms of its gross value added, is in the range of 5% to 10%. It employs only 4% of the workforce and contributes about 6% to 7% of tax receipts. I am not saying that that is not a big contribution—it is—but clearly upwards of 90% of our economic output is generated by a diverse range of other sectors. The service sector, as I mentioned, dominates, with professional, scientific and technical services accounting for the largest part—almost 13%—of the non-financial sector GVA. Other important sectors include entertainment and media, which make a strong and growing contribution to the economy, as do the green technologies and services. These sectors have been able to show growth when other sectors of the economy have been in decline.

One fundamental reason for this resilience and strength in our economy is our academic record and our academic institutions. Given the size of our country, it is quite astounding that the UK is home to four of the top 20 universities in the world and that 15 are in the top 100. This gives us a fantastic foundation on which to build, educating not just our own young people but people around the world. We are able to disseminate into the wider world the principles and ideas that we hold dear using our academic institutions, which themselves are now opening campuses in other parts of the world. Based on that sound academic and research base, we also now have a globally competitive lead in key sectors such as biopharmaceuticals, aerospace and the digital economy.

We also have—the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, spoke very eloquently about this—a very clear history of innovation. This is an essential component of a modern economy. We do not need to talk about the Industrial Revolution but I mention briefly a recent innovation in the invention of graphene, which is being dubbed the world’s most important new material. It was discovered by two Russian scientists at Manchester University in 2004. The excitement around this material is very great. However, the question remains: will the UK be able to go from research and the fundamental principles of discovery into commercialisation and help to build a business around it? It is clear that graphene can be put to use in a number of different ways—from condoms to super-efficient solar power cells. Therefore, there is much to be optimistic about.

However, there are of course challenges—not least challenges to the public purse, on which my noble friend Lord Rooker cleverly instigated a debate within the topic of his speech. Perhaps primary among those are the demographic changes that we will experience. Average life expectancy is growing. We have reduced infant mortality, and medical advances and higher living standards now mean that we are living longer, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, alluded to. These are good things that we should celebrate. They are a mark of how much we have improved our lot in a relatively short period. We have seen diseases eradicated, and a number of medical interventions and innovations have helped to prolong life.

However, a top-heavy demographic will create pressures on public spending, increase our pension liability and potentially lead to higher care and health costs, with the added problem of fewer working-age people paying into the pot in taxes. Of course, immigration can help to address this, and a number of noble Lords have alluded to the fact that interconnectedness can help to strengthen us and make us more resilient. Far from bowing to the scepticism and scaremongering about immigration, we must celebrate and praise the resilience that it has given our economy.

Healthcare is going to be a crucial issue. I think we will find that health and social care are incredibly difficult topics. Of course, one method of helping to alleviate the burden on the public purse is to spend more on prevention. More needs to be done in looking at some of the commonplace diseases that perhaps do not grab the headlines as much, such as diabetes, heart disease and obesity. People with these chronic illnesses and diseases can be helped through better education and early intervention. A refocusing on prevention in our national healthcare system would be money well spent.

I should also like to mention the need to clean our air. It seems to me crazy that in the 21st century we still have a problem with air quality. Poor air quality contributes to chronic diseases such as asthma and other respiratory diseases, and it should be a priority for any modern economy to eradicate it. The technology now exists to make our streets and our air far cleaner. There is no excuse for some parts of London currently having triple the legal limits of NOx pollution.

The other great challenge for government—I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Harris for describing it—is the need to keep a balance in our economy and not to allow inequality. We cannot have an innovation and growth economy that represents only the few and not the many. The whole of our population must be brought forward together. Inequality is a real problem but the answer, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, is not water cannons. There must be a much more sophisticated response than that. We must address the fact that poverty is now found among those in work as well as those out of work. I believe that the statistics show that poverty levels are now higher among those in employment than those not in employment.

Looking slightly more closely at how we raise finance for public spending, there are a few trends which I think this Government and all Governments need to think about. One, in particular, is that we rely quite heavily on income based on fossil fuel taxation. Fuel levies make up 5% of the revenue but the consumption of fuels is falling as vehicles become more efficient, and North Sea revenues are also falling as production declines. The question is: what will replace that as a source of income? The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, mentioned shale gas, the impact that it has had in the US and how it has created a challenge for Europe as a whole. I do not dispute that but it is not yet clear that shale gas can deliver the same kind of revolution here as the US has experienced or on what scale. There is also a great need to ensure that we have robust regulation to protect water resources and drinking water when we eventually exploit it.

I would prefer a balanced approach: shale gas if it can be extracted safely and affordably and carbon capture and storage, a technology which could add value to and reinvestment in the North Sea infrastructure, extending the economic lifetime of that investment and enabling us to return to using our own coal-based assets. It would definitely help energy resilience if a higher proportion of our energy came from home production rather than imported fuels. CCS is underexploited and given too low a priority by this Government. I wish we could see as much enthusiasm about CCS as we do about shale gas from our Ministers and leaders. Canada is currently leading the world on this. We had an opportunity to be world leaders and we must catch up.

I am feeling in an optimistic mood: we are currently experiencing an economic recovery and that is certainly welcome. However, it has to be a sustainable recovery: one based merely on increased consumption or housing price rises will not be sustainable in the long run and we cannot risk a repeat of the boom-and-bust cycle that led to this recession in the first place.

The answer lies in innovation at every level. As noble Lords have alluded to, there are now technologies which are revolutionising everything. From education to transport to you name it, a coming technology will change how we do things currently. For example, smart homes: there are now devices that you can put on your mobile phone which communicate with your house so that when you are approaching your home it tells the central heating to switch on and get it nice and warm ready for your arrival. You do not need to do anything: it is simply based on reading where you are using your mobile phone. With LED lighting, huge efficiencies over the current lighting systems are possible. Every local authority in the country should be investing in it, not only to reduce their electricity bills but to improve the quality of services that they offer. Smart LED lighting can adjust to the levels needed automatically and can spread the provision of lighting to help increase security. A great deal of new technology is coming through which will help to improve our lives.

A number of noble Lords have alluded to the fact that we must have a long-term plan if we are going to do this efficiently and well. We cannot allow the short-term thinking which is rife in the private sector, governed as it is by the quarterly cycle of reporting and the desire to meet shareholder demands: we need a longer-term view.

We must also have a longer-term view than the election cycle, where there is always a temptation to worry about the immediate priority of winning an election at the expense of longer-term thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, pointed out that in the desire to cut spending in ways that will not be noticed, investment in the future and in capital is often one of the first things to go. That is regrettable.

That brings me on to perhaps the most negative part of my contribution today—that is, the Government’s plans on flooding defence. It is clear that there has been a little confusion, to be generous, about how much money is going in. It is clear that less government money is going in than has previously been the case and it appears that government plans for the future are a little short-sighted. I am informed that the Government’s Flood Re proposals do not include the likely increased need for flood defence as a result of climate change. We can debate climate change and where we are at the moment, but it is clear that reduced ice in the Arctic means more evaporation, more precipitation and sea-level rise. Many factors will contribute to flooding for which we need to plan; we cannot simply wish them away.

I am concerned about the Flood Re proposals. I have received information today that there are large exemptions to the kinds of property that can have access to this insurance. A group of organisations, including the British Property Federation and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, have said that millions of homes could be left without access to insurance unless that policy is changed.

I am told that I have one minute left and I will end, as I said, on a positive note. The pace of change is quite extraordinary. I am sure that I am not the first person to have said that and that future generations will say it too. It is a matter of perception. With the benefit of hindsight, it always seems as if things used to be more clear and certain. We must resist the temptation to feel that there are many new risks or risks that are unique to our time. It is human nature to perceive, be aware of and try to plan for risk. It is what has made us a successful species. I shall end with a quote from Sir Winston Churchill:

“The future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope”.

That is why I am feeling cheerful today. The UK has great assets and a great ability to respond to these challenges, and I am sure that it will do so.

16:00

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, some debates are more difficult to sum up than others, but this one is simply impossible. Let me start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds for everything he has done as a Member of this House and for the many contributions he has made. I hope that he will not be losing touch with his diocese entirely, which I know well, having walked across substantial parts of it, and having canvassed in such different areas as the Gipton and Harehills estates in Leeds and the Duchy estate in Harrogate—to take two extreme ends of the social spectrum. Only those who have walked over the Yorkshire Dales know quite how extraordinary are the boundaries between the different dioceses of West and North Yorkshire: Bradford, Wakefield, Leeds and Ripon. I know that the retirement of the right reverend Prelate is partly an adjustment of the boundaries of those dioceses, which will relate more to the 21st century than to the early 20th century when they were drawn up.

Let me start by talking about the Government’s response to issues of resilience. I stress that it is not just about this Government’s response because we have inherited a lot from our predecessors. I hope that we have improved upon it, although as has been said, we are all conscious that Governments tend to think about the period between now and the next election. However, good government apparatus needs always to think about the long term. The Civil Contingencies Secretariat of the Cabinet Office, with the horizon-scanning that various members of the Cabinet Office undertake, always tries to look 15, 20 and 30 years ahead. That did not start with this Government; it is something that any Government should be doing.

When this Government came into office, I was struck by the list in the national security strategy—a document produced mainly by the Ministry of Defence—of what were thought to be the major threats to Britain. What was most striking was how few of the threats identified were primarily military. The first was international terrorism affecting the UK, with hostile attacks against UK cyberspace listed as the second of the really serious threats. It cited a major accident or natural hazard such as flooding affecting three or more regions or an influenza pandemic as the third threat, and an international crisis between other states which might draw in the UK and its allies, as well as non-state actors, as the fourth. Under tier 2 were listed the risk of major instability, insurgency or civil war overseas that might create a surge of terrorists or asylum seekers, a significant increase in the level of organised crime affecting the UK, and severe disruption to information received, transmitted or collected by satellite either as the result of deliberate attack by another state or through the impact of space weather. So the Government do try to think ahead, but the idea that any Government could ever be entirely coherent in their response to every possible contingency is asking for the moon, and possibly even for the sun as well. As I struggle to come to terms with the many different things that the Cabinet Office does, and which I find I am responsible for reporting on to this House, I have to say that this Government are doing a fairly good job.

On two occasions I have been briefed on the question of cyberdefences and the threat of cyberattack. I told my wife that when she visits Beijing in a few weeks, she is certainly not taking any phone other than one she might buy to go there and come away with. Again, the Government are well prepared for many of the risks that we face in this new world: the government structure is in place.

Of course, the Cabinet Office works in collaboration with the DCLG, Defra, DECC and a number of other departments, and in co-operation with local government because many local issues, particularly flooding or other weather events, are dealt with much better in the first instance by local responders at local level.

Incidentally, I am struck that no one has mentioned national or global population increase as a long-term source of insecurity. It evidently is a matter of concern to our population. It is certainly a source of potential problems if there is climate change in other parts of the world or, perhaps, due to the declining effectiveness of antibiotics in controlling disease, which is a problem with which the Government are already actively engaged.

I will make what is perhaps the party point that very few of these threats—indeed, almost none of them—can be dealt with by national action alone. National security requires international co-operation, both European and global. The defence of national sovereignty, about which some newspapers in particular seem to go on at great length, does not fit in well with protection against external, regional and global threats.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether or not foreign ownership of key national assets is itself a potential source of national insecurity or threat. That is a very large question, which perhaps he would like to promote an entire debate on. All I will say is that it is very odd that the anti-European right does not focus on that issue when it is talking about the defence of national sovereignty.

The right reverend Prelate asked about UK policy on climate change. Again, UK policy on climate change has to contribute to European and global policy on climate change. We are engaged in an active negotiation within the European Union about how we and the other 27 member states adjust to climate change. The discovery of shale gas in the United States has not made that any easier because the higher price of energy in Europe compared to the United States is clearly a very major issue here.

I say in passing to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who doubts that we should depend so much on renewable energy from wind, if you walk around Yorkshire, you are always conscious that there is an awful lot of unused hydropower available. I have just had to keep my head very low in an argument within Saltaire village about whether or not you could put in an Archimedean screw on our weir, which we are now doing, which will provide a small amount of local hydropower. There are about 100 other weirs on the River Aire and if one were to harness all those weirs that we used to use in the 18th and 19th centuries for power in Yorkshire, we would provide a small additional contribution to renewable energy from land-based fresh water, which incidentally would be most effective at the point where wind power was likely to be least effective.

While I am on the international theme, I will quote the Peer Review Report from the European Commission, OECD and UNISDR on the United Kingdom’s resilience:

“Since the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) was enacted in 2004, the UK has continued to increase the resilience of society to disasters. Sophisticated mechanisms have been put in place to coordinate the actions of various levels of government and its agencies at national and local levels … In many respects, the UK resilience approach shows state-of-the-art innovations, including: large use of science to support policy … attention to business-continuity issues and full partnerships with the private sector … flexible institutional mechanisms and partnerships focused on delivery through voluntary approaches … professional and dedicated co-workers in the field of DRR”—

disaster risk reduction—

“throughout the country … national commitment to continue improving policy-making and pushing further implementation”.

Again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that of course none of that started in 2010 but we are continuing to pay active attention to this extremely important issue.

It is not only the Government; there is a role for Parliament and for society as a whole in all of this. We talk about government resilience but of course there is also economic resilience and social resilience. There is a role for Parliament in promoting public awareness of challenges to resilience and of the need for the public as well as government nationally and locally to play a part in response. I suggest that Parliament could do more, through debates and committee activities, to scrutinise government on these long-term threats.

The noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Brooke, talked about local communities, local government and the involvement of the public and charities. The revival of local government is one of the things that this Government have begun to make some progress on, although I have to say that we have been frustratingly slow in doing it. Clearly the city deals and getting people back into local engagement are part of the way in which we have to improve social and political resilience. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, on the extent to which charities should be as dependent on government funding as many became in the 13 years of the Labour Government. I have occasionally been shocked in Yorkshire by just how intensely overdependent some charities are on government funding. It is an unnatural dependence. That is a question that we will need to discuss with the charity sector.

In many ways, civil society more broadly has become too passive in Britain. I am a fan of the big society partly because it says, “Government cannot do everything for you. You have to help to do some of these things yourselves”. I remember the shock that my wife and I had when, during a very heavy snow storm some winters ago, one of the many young people who have stayed in our house in London over the years—because it is too large for us and we are away at the weekends—said, “Why haven’t they cleared the paths?”. We both turned on him and said, “Why haven’t you cleared the paths?”. This is part of the problem that we have across too much of our society. We need to get people back into the sense that they share in citizenship and in their local and national community. I will flag up a number of government programmes which help with that. The national citizenship service scheme pilots, as they still remain, have done a very encouraging amount to show to some young people from the deprived sectors of our society that they can, and would be happy to, help and work with others in building local community initiatives. I have also watched the arrival of the apprenticeship programme and have seen in Leeds and Bradford the extent to which young people who thought they were never going to work, have got themselves back into work and are finding that it is an enormously valued part of their life within the community.

The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, remarked how we have a coherent and cohesive society and have never had a revolution. As he spoke, I thought of what my father told me many times. When he was a sergeant in the Gordon Highlanders in 1919 during the miners’ strike and was sent off with a platoon to guard a Nottinghamshire mine, he was sure that the Sherwood Foresters were probably there guarding a mine in the Scottish lowlands—I think we got pretty close to it in 1919. The question of social cohesion and social resilience is one which we cannot neglect in Britain at present. A topic for another debate would certainly be whether the growth of the extreme inequalities which we see in our society, as well as the increasing ethnic diversity, weakens social resilience.

The ageing population, to which a number of references were made, also raises considerable problems. For example, I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that it tends to make society more resistant to change and innovation. As we have seen, it also increases the pressure on all Governments to spend more on the old and less on the young.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am sorry to interrupt, and I know it is a timed debate, but did the noble Lord imply that increasing ethnic diversity would reduce society’s resilience? If so, could he explain the point?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I merely said that it is a risk. It is a risk that we have seen over the past 20 or 30 years. On the whole, we have managed the diversity of British society extremely well, but it is not something—I say this again from my experience in West Yorkshire—that can be entirely ignored. It is one that we all have to be aware of. My noble friend Lady Eaton, a former leader of Bradford council, is actively engaged in Near Neighbours, which works across West Yorkshire in bringing those different communities together. We have to work on these things.

Animal disease was mentioned. Defra and the veterinary agency are dealing with scanning surveillance capability on the threat of animal disease. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that a large number of scientists in universities, in government laboratories and in the private sector are working together on this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and others spoke about spending on flood defences. The noble Baroness was absolutely right: spending overall is going up, which is partly because, under partnership arrangements, private providers are increasing their contribution as the Government have squeezed the rate of their contribution. Those who say that there has been a reduction and those who say that there has been an increase are therefore both right depending on whose figures you take. We are all conscious that flood defences are a highly emotive issue. I would contradict those noble Lords who suggested that the Government are not thinking about the future of peatlands and tree-planting in the uplands. We had a Question on peatlands from my noble friend Lord Greaves the other day. These are matters where the Government, local authorities and water companies are working together.

I am conscious that time is running out. I have mentioned the flood mitigation measures which are already under way; clearly, more needs to be done. I was looking up what an earth bund was this morning— perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, already knows what that is—but experiments are under way to prevent heavy rainwater on saturated land going immediately downstream by holding it in artificially created water meadows. The Government are experimenting as far as they can in all this.

[Baroness Worthington]

Would the Minister care to comment on my questions about the Flood Re provisions and the number of households which it is feared may not be able to apply for flood insurance under that scheme?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I have some notes on this which I have not had time fully to absorb. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness. I am conscious that the Government are engaged in active discussions on that. I know that it is matter of great concern to householders who live on flood plains. I think that about a quarter of the population of Wandsworth lives in houses built on the Thames flood plain. That is part of the reason why we need the Thames barrier. Their houses were built 100 years ago or more. This is not a new problem.

Many other issues were raised in this debate. They included the need for innovation; the advantages of greater globalisation—referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—and the risks of globalisation in terms of undue energy dependence or undue food dependence. I always think that I am contributing a great deal to Britain’s energy security by the amount of food that we produce on our allotment. We have just finished our last courgettes from last summer and there are still apples in the basement, so we are doing our small bit for British energy security.

Perhaps I may end by saying that government can never anticipate all risks. When the great fire at Buncefield went up some years ago, my wife reminded me of a conversation that we had had with the head of the international energy programme at Chatham House when we both worked there in the mid-1980s. He had said, “I’m not terribly worried about civil nuclear problems; what I’m really worried about is what would happen if one of those oil distribution depots went up”. We had not a clue what he meant by it at the time, and probably very few people even in government were thinking about the potential for that. That was the largest fire in Europe since the Second World War, and a major national emergency that I suspect that we had not entirely prepared for. One of the problems that government faces is how much you insure against risks which would be severe but which are not terribly likely, and how far you insure against smaller risks which are more likely but less severe.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his, as always, wonderful and extremely wide-ranging speech. I look forward to many more interventions from him in the future.

16:19

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I thank everybody who participated in the debate. I will make two points incredibly briefly. First, when the Minister read out the list of things that he looked at when he came into office, I was reminded of the 1931 essay by Churchill that I quoted from, “Fifty Years Hence”. It is almost a modern-day version of that essay. Secondly, I will give him a new risk that I did not raise before, one that comes out of something said by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I was at the launch last week by the Crop Protection Association—which he mentioned—of a new campaign against illegal pesticides. The association estimates that currently between 7% and 10% of pesticides entering Europe are illegal and that most of them start off in China. We could be more damaged by those because they could poison our land if misused. That is another risk to be going on with that needs to be added to the list. I thank everyone for participating in the debate. It has been exactly as intended—wide-ranging, in the sense that my noble friend Lord Touhig said.

Motion agreed.

EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures: EUC Reports

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:21

Moved by

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

That this House takes note of the Reports of the European Union Committee on EU police and criminal justice measures: The UK’s 2014 opt-out decision (13th Report, Session 2012–13, HL Paper 159) and Follow-up report on EU police and criminal justice measures: The UK’s 2014 opt-out decision (5th Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 69).

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the debate today is unusual in that we are debating two reports, not one: the report of 23 April 2013, EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures: The UK’s 2014 Opt-Out Decision, and a follow-up to that report of 31 October 2013.

It is unusual, too, that these reports were prepared not by one sub-committee of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee but two: the Sub-Committee on Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection, chaired until May 2013 by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and since then by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston; and the Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education, which I have the honour to chair. We took all our evidence and prepared both our reports at joint meetings. These reports were agreed by consensus. They reflect the views of Members drawn from all the main party groups represented in this House and from these Cross Benches. I pay tribute to the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, who shared the chairing of these meetings with me, and to all members of the sub-committees who put in many long hours of work dealing with extremely complex material. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who was my predecessor in the chair of the sub-committee, will participate in this debate.

The two reports are unusual for a third reason. Reports from your Lordships’ EU Select Committee are often based on legislative proposals or communications from the Commission but in this case we inquired into a decision to be taken by our own Government: whether or not to trigger before 31 May 2014 the block opt-out from the pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs measures, provided for in Protocol 36 of the Lisbon treaty. Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the EU treaties, which was added by the Lisbon treaty, enables the Government to decide whether the UK should continue to be bound by the approximately 130 police and criminal justice measures adopted before the treaty of Lisbon entered into force or exercise their right to opt out of them all. If the Government do not opt out, these measures would become subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the enforcement powers of the European Commission on 1 December 2014 in relation to the UK, as they will to all other member states. If the opt-out is exercised, all the measures would cease to apply to the UK and it would have to negotiate to seek to rejoin any measures where it wanted to do so.

Some words about process: it has been clear from the start that the 31 May 2014 final deadline for triggering the block opt-out left far too little time before the cut-off date of 1 December 2014, when any opt-out would become effective, to negotiate with the Commission and Council the necessary decisions to permit the UK to rejoin any of the measures it wished to, especially since the upcoming European Parliament elections and changeover in personnel at the top of the European institutions could complicate matters. Therefore, we have no criticism of the Government for moving well ahead of the 31 May 2014 deadline; indeed, we believe they should, if anything, have moved sooner than they did to allow an adequate period for what will necessarily be complex and substantive negotiations. Time alone will show whether we were right to be concerned at the slowness with which the Government reached a view. Nor did we, or any of the many witnesses from whom we took evidence, question the Government’s unfettered right to trigger the opt-out, a right which was accepted by all the other member states when they ratified the Lisbon treaty. However, that, I am afraid, is as far as harmony on process goes.

During the first half of 2012, both Houses were assured by Ministers in the most unambiguous and unequivocal terms that before any decision was taken on triggering the opt-out, there would be extensive consultations with the relevant committees in both Houses, yet the Prime Minister announced the decision in—of all places—Rio de Janeiro, rather than in Parliament, on 28 September 2012, at a time when, seemingly, no consultation had taken place at all. There had been no consultation with the committees of either House; no consultation with the Ministers of devolved Administrations, two of which—those in Edinburgh and Belfast—are responsible for separate, independent legal jurisdictions; and no consultation with the law enforcement agencies and the professional bodies which would be directly affected by any opt-out.

Nor did matters much improve after the Home Secretary finally informed Parliament of the Government’s “current thinking” by a letter and Statement in October 2012. Explanatory Memorandums were promised in November 2012 but did not finally appear until June 2013. An impact assessment somehow went missing in action and has still not been provided. No indication was given by the time of our first report in April 2013 as to which measures the Government would seek to rejoin if they triggered the block opt-out, and when that information was provided and the list of 35 measures was revealed in July 2013, Parliament was given a few days only before being asked to approve the triggering of the opt-out. The Government response to our April 2013 report arrived a month beyond the two-month deadline for such a response and actually on the day this House was being asked to vote on the opt-out. It is, I fear, a sorry saga of disrespect for Parliament which speaks for itself.

I will not weary the House with too much detail from our first report but will focus on six broad conclusions that we reached. First, we asked all our witnesses whether they had any evidence that any single one of the pre-Lisbon measures which fell within the scope of Protocol 36 had actually been detrimental to the UK. Generally our witnesses—and they included those such as Dominic Raab MP, who not only wanted the Government to trigger the block opt-out but wanted them to withdraw from those post-Lisbon measures to which the UK had already opted in—were not able to identify a single measure that had damaged this country. Some of the measures have had no practical impact because the UK was already applying their provisions under our domestic law; some were defunct and therefore irrelevant to the whole exercise; and many had been of positive benefit to the UK, not least by strengthening the fight against serious international crime. So it was clear that the only matter at issue with respect to the pre-Lisbon measures was whether the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the enforcement powers of the Commission should be extended to cover them from 1 December 2014 as the treaty provides.

Secondly, it became apparent from our inquiry that the Government, quite rightly in our view, had no objection of principle to the extension of the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction and the Commission’s enforcement powers to other aspects of justice and home affairs legislation. How otherwise can one construe the fact that the Government have opted in to a substantial number of post-Lisbon measures—49 at the last count and mounting—which automatically involve the extension to cover them of that jurisdiction and power? As the Home Secretary told us, the Government’s approach was a pragmatic one based on their assessment of the national interest. We applauded that.

Thirdly, we considered carefully whether the existence of EU competence in the field of justice and home affairs—this is an area of shared competence—in some way undermined or weakened the system of common law as practised in this country. We heard some assertions to that effect, but no evidence was given to us to substantiate those assertions. Indeed, to the contrary, we heard a great deal of evidence on the benefits, most particularly from the professional bodies that might have been expected to be most vigilant in that respect. It is, of course, a simple fact that there are four member states with elements of common law in their systems in the European Union: Cyprus, Malta, Ireland and the UK.

Fourthly, we also gave full consideration to suggestions that, even if the UK triggered the block opt-out and did not seek to rejoin, for example, the European arrest warrant, our national interests could be secured in other ways, by relying on Council of Europe instruments or on bilateral agreements for co-operation with other member states. Our conclusion was that such bilateral systems, even if other member states were prepared to negotiate them, which is far from certain, would be slower, more costly and a less sure protection for our citizens than they have under existing EU legislation; and that the Council of Europe instruments would be no equivalent substitute for that legislation.

Fifthly, we looked more carefully than the Government initially seem to have done into what I would call the Irish dimension: the massively improved law enforcement co-operation that now prevails between the Republic and Northern Ireland. While the Irish Government did not wish to give evidence to our inquiry, we heard quite enough from other sources to convince us that that the improved co-operation and the de-politicisation of law enforcement activity on both sides of the border depends largely on the underpinning of EU legislation. Remove that underpinning—and here the European arrest warrant is of central importance—and one would risk the unravelling of structures of co-operation which have done so much to improve the daily lives of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.

These five conclusions led us to our sixth and overarching conclusion that the Government had not made a convincing case in favour of their preferred option to trigger the block opt-out and to seek to rejoin a limited number of pre-Lisbon measures. That sixth conclusion has subsequently been overtaken by the decision of both Houses to endorse triggering the block opt-out, but it remains the view of the two sub-committees and of the EU Select Committee itself.

Our second report, for which the Government specifically asked in the Motion that was agreed on 23 July, did not seek to reopen that debate, but rather to focus on the situation following the Government’s notification to the Council on 24 July triggering the block opt-out. Here, too, I will spare the House too much detail and focus on a few salient points. First, we carefully reviewed the 35 pre-Lisbon measures which the Government had stated an intention of rejoining and which this House, unlike the other place, had explicitly endorsed on 23 July. We concluded that the Government had indeed picked out most of the measures that it was essential for the UK, in its own national interest, to seek to rejoin. However, we identified a small number of additional measures, beyond the Government’s 35, which we believed it was in the UK’s national interest to rejoin; and we urged the Government to add these to their list when they sat down to negotiate with the Commission. These included a number of implementing Europol measures which we believed would be judged by the Commission to be necessary to rejoin on coherence grounds, a view with which we had sympathy. However, we also identified the European probation order, the European judicial network and the convention on driving disqualifications which we believed it was in the UK’s national interest to rejoin; and the framework decision on racism and xenophobia, withdrawal from which we believed would do the UK considerable reputational damage, even if our domestic laws were there to give effect to its provisions. I can just imagine President Putin or the Chinese Government rubbing our noses in that withdrawal.

Turning back again to process, we underlined the importance of the Government giving Parliament regular progress reports on the negotiations, by now, I assume, under way with the Commission and the Council; and of their providing a full and detailed impact assessment in good time before they seek the further vote in both Houses which it is their stated intention to hold on the final package of measures that the UK will rejoin. We expressed yet again the concerns that time is short between now and 1 December 2014 to complete the negotiations for rejoining the pre-Lisbon measures identified, which might necessitate putting in place robust transitional measures to bridge any gaps. This would be particularly important in the case of the European arrest warrant, where any hiatus could lead to extensive litigation and perhaps to suspected criminals escaping justice.

The Government’s response to this second report was full, detailed and on time— just. It arrived on the day it was due; on this occasion, sufficiently well in advance of today’s debate for it to be properly considered. For that, credit should be given, but I have to say that much of its content was deeply disappointing and it did not seem to give a seriously considered reaction to the very modest list of additional measures that we suggested should be included among those the UK should seek to rejoin, and which our committees believed that it would be in the national interest to do. The repeated assurance of some negotiating flexibility over the Europol implementing measures is welcome, but they should surely have been on this list from the outset. The explicit recognition that a future Government might well wish to rejoin the European probation order leaves us wondering why we are planning to drop out of it now.

It is good, of course, that the Government have at last recognised that there could be some reputational damage following our withdrawal from the racism and xenophobia decision. No doubt there will be. Only time will tell whether it will be, to use the Government’s word, “significant”. Why incur such damage at all when the reason for doing so appears to be the rather far-fetched fear that the UK might be put under pressure to criminalise Holocaust denial? The reasons given for not rejoining the European judicial network are so threadbare as to be almost laughable, and on the Convention on Driving Disqualifications, it appears that we are going down the road of negotiating bilaterally with the Irish a provision that will replicate the EU measure while ditching all the practical benefits we get from the EU measure vis-à-vis the other 26 member states. Would it not have been an awful lot simpler and certainly more cost-effective simply to seek to rejoin the EU Convention on Driving Disqualifications?

All in all, I fear that it is hard to resist the conclusion that the Government’s approach to calculating the national interest on these measures is purely arithmetical one and not based on the merits of the measures in question. That is why it is to be hoped that, as the negotiations with the Commission and the Council proceed, the Government will think again about their possible inclusion. It is also a reason to take more seriously than the Government currently do our recommendation that there should be a commitment to review the effect of the block opt-out some years—three, perhaps—after it comes into force.

I apologise for speaking at such length, but the subject matter is complex and the issues at stake are of great importance. I would be most grateful if the Minister, in addition to responding to my contribution and those of other noble Lords, would give a progress report on the negotiations with the Commission and the Council. Will he tell the House whether the negotiations started and, if so, when? Will he say when the next progress report to Parliament will be made and give an undertaking to provide the promised impact assessment early enough before the second debate and vote to permit your Lordships’ EU Select Committee, if appropriate, to report to the House ahead of that vote? Will he give some idea of the timing and scope of that debate and vote?

I realise that I have spoken quite harshly about the Government’s handling of this issue. I have done no more than express the views of the committees but, in concluding, I should add one personal observation. The choice offered to the Government under the provisions of Protocol 36 was an exceptionally unpalatable one and, while the committee believes that they may have made the wrong decision, it would be as well to recognise that the drafting of Protocol 36, posing an all-or-nothing choice, was not in the best interests of this country.

16:40

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, kindly referred to the fact that I was some years ago his predecessor as chairman of the sub-committee of the European committee that deals with matters of home affairs and that general area. I am bound to say that I have spent almost all the 16 years that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House as a member of one or other of the sub-committees of the European committee, as well as a member over a number of years of the main committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke of speaking harshly, and I shall speak no less harshly, but not quite on the same issues as those that he talked about. I am not a member of either of the select committees that have produced these reports. I am now a member of Sub-Committee C, which deals with foreign affairs and defence. Years ago, I was chairman of that committee. Over the years, I have had a continued disquiet over the Government’s attitude to the House of Lords and its work. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to a good many of the reservations that the members of the committees have had about how the Government have responded—and I am talking about Governments of both parties. I shall come to that a little later. I do not believe that the departments involved treat your Lordships’ House as they should.

If I were making a sermon, I would take as my text the Government’s response to House of Commons Paper 683, titled, The UK’s Block Opt-out of pre-Lisbon Criminal Law and Policing Measures, in which the Government say that they,

“thought it necessary to reply to one of the principal criticisms running through your report: a perceived lack of engagement by the Government with Parliament on this issue”.

That would be my text, but then one comes to the two reports that we are discussing. Paper 159, published on 23 April last year, in paragraph 280 says:

“We regret that the Government have not complied with their own undertakings to engage effectively with Parliament regarding the opt-out decision”.

In the second report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also referred, which is Paper 69 published on 31 October last year—I am sorry to have to keep quoting these things, but it puts things into proper perspective—the committee states:

“We restate our disappointment that important information about the measures covered by the opt-out was not provided in a timely manner to Parliament and was only made available a few days before both Houses were asked to take decision on the Government’s proposed course of action”.

In the same report, in Chapter 2 and paragraph 106, the committee says:

“We regret that the grounds on which the Government made their selection of measures to seek to rejoin were not set out persuasively in the EMs”—

that is, the explanatory memoranda.

Those are just some examples of when the committee has had anxieties. Those anxieties are also spread among other European Union sub-committees, and we have seen much more blatant examples of incompetence by departments and Ministers in the past. When I was chairman of the committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is now chairman, we had a case under the previous Government involving Mr Liam Byrne, who took over a year to reply to one of our letters. The then Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, actually named him, with a rebuke on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. I have been a Member of one House or another in this Building for just coming up to 50 years, and I can never remember a senior member of the Government publicly criticising a junior Minister, as she did, before.

We have had yet another case in Sub-Committee C, which I raised with the previous Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Green. We wrote him a letter in November 2012. He did not reply. We sent reminders at staff level the following March, May and August. We then wrote again last October, to find out what was going on. We found almost immediately afterwards that the Government had agreed the text, but we still had not had a reply to our letter of a year earlier. When the noble Lord came to give evidence to the committee, on 21 November last year, it seemed to the committee—I cannot swear that this is true, but there was every indication that it was—that the first the noble Lord had heard of this incompetence was as he was in the passage upstairs coming into the committee, when one of our officials told him and his officials that the matter was likely to be raised.

Those are two examples of Ministers in different Governments taking over a year to reply to our requests and correspondence. Frankly, it just will not do. One cannot help feeling that, just because your Lordships’ House is not so politically confrontational as the House along the corridor, they seem to think that they can treat it in that dilatory way. I resent that very much indeed. I am no Eurosceptic—philosophically, I tend very much in the opposite direction—so I am not using this argument to push a Eurosceptic line. That is the last thing I would do.

We get far too many overrides. Departments seem to have an unacceptable lack of urgency. Above all, Ministers do not insist. They do not see to it that they enforce proper attitudes towards your Lordships’ House in their departments. When, a few weeks ago, we confronted the noble Lord, Lord Green, with that delay—I got the impression that the poor man was hearing all this for the first time—I asked him, with regard to ministerial control over departments, “Have you ever heard of Sir Thomas Dugdale?” He said that he had. Your Lordships will remember that Sir Thomas was the Minister of Agriculture in the other House who resigned over the Crichel Down affair, which started in the 1940s, because he reckoned that he was in charge of the department, and dilatoriness and sloppiness in departments—which is what we see now—was the ultimate responsibility of Ministers. Your Lordships’ House should not be fobbed off by lack of ministerial control and sloppy departments.

16:50

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate as the person who, since May of last year, has chaired Sub-Committee E, which is one of the two sub-committees together with that of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who has already spoken and whose expertise in these matters is probably unrivalled in this House. I want at the outset to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, my predecessor as the chair of Sub-Committee E. He chaired that committee with great distinction and he took it in turns—as I have since May—with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to chair the meetings and conduct the inquiries. I associate myself and the members of my committee with the entire content of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, particularly on the way in which this House has been treated by the Government. I also echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who has had a distinguished career in both Houses of Parliament.

The two reports we are debating today represent a considerable amount of work by the two sub-committees, and by the Select Committee, on behalf of the whole House. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who chairs the European Union Committee, is disappointed that because of another engagement he is unable to be in his place today. It was therefore something pleasing to note from the Government’s response to our second report, the Follow-up Report on EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures, that the Government considered that the reports represented what they describe as,

“an extremely thorough analysis of a complex issue”.

It was thorough and it is complex.

I will not go on about or rehearse the procedural failings of the Government in their dealings with Parliament on the opt-out. Both our reports comment on all that and it has been rehearsed before. Things went wrong—it may be said that they went downhill— from the Prime Minister’s speech in Rio, which appeared to pre-empt the decision on whether to exercise the opt-out even before our first inquiry began, and have taken a long time to get back on track. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will tell us that lessons have been learnt.

There are more steps to come in the procedure under the opt-out protocol for the United Kingdom to rejoin measures, and we expect the Government to keep Parliament properly informed and in a timely fashion as the process plays out. In particular, we will need a comprehensive impact assessment to assess the outcome of the Government’s negotiations on rejoining measures. An assessment of the measures covered by the opt-out was promised as long ago as November 2012, which is 14 months ago, and the Explanatory Memoranda published last July do not fulfil that requirement. I emphasise that the impact assessment should not cover just the 35 measures which the Government wish to rejoin, as we can all make a judgment as to the efficacy or rightness of those decisions; they should certainly cover the other 95.

It seems to me, and to my sub-committee, that it is crass to fail to explore the impact of not seeking to rejoin measures such as those on driving disqualifications, probation or racism and xenophobia. It is all very well to say that we have comprehensive legislation in that final instance, on racism and xenophobia. That may be true—I think it is—but it sends out a rather bad signal when that decision was taken at the same time as vans were going round certain London boroughs telling illegal immigrants to go home.

In our first report, we considered whether the opt-out should be exercised. We said that we found the Government’s case for exercising the opt-out was unconvincing. I, and we, remain unconvinced. The Government’s decision to exercise the opt-out was much influenced by their view on extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the 130 measures to which the opt-out applies. We think that the Government’s fears are misplaced. It is highly unlikely that the 130 measures were drafted without thought as to this jurisdiction, as the Government say, given 11 member states had agreed that their courts could make preliminary references to the Court of Justice for the interpretation of European Union police and criminal justice measures from 1999.

Of course, there will be cases from time to time where the Government will disagree with the judgments of any court of any jurisdiction. However, we do well to remember that courts act as guardians for us all and the Court of Justice ensures the common interpretation of European Union law throughout the Union and prevents backsliding from their obligations by member states. The United Kingdom has nothing to fear from an extension of the court’s jurisdiction to these police and criminal justice measures. It would otherwise hardly seek to rejoin even 35 of them.

Unfortunately, although the Government are saying that the reports were helpful in informing their decision on the issues, I echo a remark of my colleague on the justice sub-committee, my noble friend Lord Rowlands, that it appeared to be something of “a dialogue of the deaf”. However, the issue of whether to opt in is now water under the bridge, following the Government’s notification of their decision to opt out in July of last year. We now have to focus on the implications of having opted out of the 130 measures concerned.

We considered the Government’s list of 35 measures that they wish to rejoin. They are set out in Appendix 4 to our second report. These measures contain the most significance in the interests of the UK and other member states. I am pleased that the Government will seek to rejoin them, in particular the legislation on the European arrest warrant and on Eurojust, both of which are particularly interesting and important given evidence to our committees in the recent past about the growing Europeanisation of crime. However, that does not mean that the others have no significance—only that the 35 are the irreducible minimum. They may yet turn out not to be the practical minimum. The Government must convince the Commission, in particular, that the set of measures that we rejoin is one that, as Protocol 36 requires, does not seriously affect the practical operability of the measures and respects their coherence.

This issue of coherence matters. Our second report considers this issue and suggests that some other measures may have to be added to the list of 35. I ask the Minister to tell us what the Commission has said on the coherence of the 35. Do the Government envisage adding to the list for reasons of coherence? It is vital that the decision on which measures to rejoin takes account of the national interest, including the national interest in rejoining a coherent set of operable measures. As our second report says, we hope and expect the Government to respond flexibly to adjustments that the Commission may propose to the list of measures that they wish to rejoin. There should be no place for a numbers game on this important issue.

The national interest is not confined to considerations of practical effectiveness, as the Government seem to believe. Of course legislation is about substance, but our approach to European Union legislation also makes signals of our intent. Opting out risks signalling to our European partners a lack of engagement on the part of the United Kingdom in the application of standards, the operation of investigations and prosecutions and the safeguarding of citizens’ rights in the field of policing and criminal justice—as important for our citizens when they visit the other countries of the European Union as it is for their citizens when they visit the United Kingdom. No matter how good our own standards are in, for example, combating racism, failing to rejoin that measure signals a detachment.

Risks remain. Even if the Government are successful in obtaining agreement to our rejoining measures, there may be gaps in application of the measures that we rejoin. The Government and the Commission will no doubt work hard to avoid gaps but may not be able to do so in every case. Transitional measures may be necessary.

One gap is already apparent: measures for obtaining evidence in cross-border cases will be greatly improved by the directive, to be adopted very soon, establishing a single system for obtaining evidence in cross-border cases, through a European investigation order. We should remind ourselves of some high-profile cross-border cases that have been very much in the public mind in the past few years. Three years will be allowed for member states to implement the directive into national law, so the new system may not be fully effective throughout the European Union until 2017. However, on 1 December this year, the UK will cease to participate in the current EU convention on mutual assistance because we have opted out of it. The Government say that this will not make much difference because there are other available measures. Perhaps so; we shall see. But this example illustrates how gaps may appear despite what I acknowledge may be good intentions.

Finally, the Government—this or another—may wish to revisit the question of whether to rejoin other measures in light of future developments. There is no time limit in Protocol 36 on opting back in, as the Government have acknowledged in their response to our second report. All the more important, therefore, is the last recommendation in our second report that there should be an ex-post review of the impact of opting out, in the same spirit as we support post-legislative scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will give this a more favourable reception than that given in the formal response to the report.

17:01

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on his incisive and analytical opening speech. It is a privilege to serve under his chairmanship on your Lordships’ EU Sub-Committee F. I do not intend to dwell on the rather convoluted chronology of these two reports and the Government’s responses to them. I intend to focus my remarks on the second, rather than the first, report.

However, in dealing with the first report and the Government’s response to it, I simply remark that its conclusion that the Government had made no compelling case for opting out still seems very strong. The Government’s given reasons for opting out still seem unconvincing. I also note that the Government have been less than punctilious in their dealings with the House over the first report. In particular, I point to the extraordinary delay in producing the Explanatory Memoranda, and the fact that the Government’s response was produced one month late, and only hours before the debate on the government opt-out/opt back in Motion. The debate on that Motion on 23 July produced a kind of clarity. As I said in that debate, I thought that the Government’s selection of 35 items to opt back into was well chosen and coherent. I still think that that is the case, just as I still think that whole exercise was completely unnecessary.

The 95 items that the Government have chosen, for the moment, not to opt back into are all harmless, and some are of real value to the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the Government have presented no case that any of these items operates against our interest or does any damage. However, we are where we are, and I want to address the remainder of my remarks chiefly to the government response to the committee’s second report.

In particular, I want to focus on some of the measures that we recommended be added to the Government’s list of 35 opt-ins. There are four of these, which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other speakers. The first is the framework decision on combating certain forms of expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. The UK has long been a leader in this area. Failing to opt back in would abandon that leadership and would send out a completely wrong signal about our commitment in this area. The Government’s reasons for not opting back in, put simply, amount to, “I’m all right, Jack”, with no real acknowledgment of loss of leadership and reputation.

The second measure is the rejoining of the European judicial network. Everybody except the Government seems to think that we should rejoin. The Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland, the Lord Advocate and others all thought that it was a useful measure. The Government’s reasons for not rejoining amount to a recognition that the contact points the network provides are “undoubtedly helpful” but,

“it may be possible to maintain those contacts without formally participating in this Council Decision”.

Why leave a system that works and causes no harm in order to rely on an informal equivalent? It is not a very strong argument.

The third measure is the European probation order. Our report said that we believed that,

“this measure has potential to provide benefits for the management of offenders on a cross-border basis and that nothing is being gained by not implementing its provisions”.

The Government continue to decline to opt back in. Their reasons are to do with the implementation, and with allowing the ECJ to have jurisdiction. We are of the view that the first of these objections—implementation—could be overcome by negotiation at a European level, and the second amounted to an almost irrational fear of the ECJ.

The fourth measure is the convention on driving disqualifications. This enables member states essentially to prevent a driver banned in one member state from driving in another. As the Government acknowledged, our report contains strong evidence of the importance of this measure in supporting co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. However, that is apart from its clear, common-sense benefits in a more general way. Instead of rejoining the measure, the Government propose to establish a separate bilateral treaty with the Republic of Ireland. This is surely a very odd way to go about things when there is a perfectly satisfactory mechanism already on the table.

I have not included in this list of four measures the measures implementing Europol council decisions, which fall within the scope of the block opt-out. The Government still decline to opt back in to these, but in this case not very convincingly. It is reasonably clear that if they have to do so in order to pass the test of coherence, then they will in fact rejoin these measures. This makes it rather odd that they did not agree to do so in the first place.

I strongly urge the Minister to consider rejoining the four measures about which I have spoken. As part of that consideration, I urge him to publish the impact assessments of all the 130 measures which are at issue, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston. These impact assessments must surely already exist, and must have formed a part of the Government’s thinking. The Government should share them with Parliament without further delay. It is very important that we take forward discussion of the opt-in measures with all the evidence and assessments being made available to us here in Parliament. I hope that the Minister agrees.

17:07

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who has spoken so clearly on these matters. When I put my name down to speak in this debate I knew that I must look back at what I said the last time we debated these matters, to ensure that I do not say something different on this occasion. I find that on 9 July 2013 I asked whether there was not an unjustified risk in opting out of what is good, which is the 35 measures, in order to get rid of the 95 pre-Lisbon measures, most of which are of no real use to anybody.

I am happy to say that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who we miss today, said that there was a lot of logic in what I had said. I also note that on that occasion I said that it was the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who was missing the whole point in this debate and not, as he suggested, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who I am happy to see in her position today.

Of course, things have moved on since then and I think that the best thing I can do today, as one of the few non-members of the European committee to take part in this debate and following the comprehensive speech of my noble friend Lord Hannay and the other excellent speeches that we have heard—above all, from the noble Baroness, Lady Corston—is to say how grateful we should all be for all the noble work that they do and have done since our last debate on our behalf, in particular for providing us with their follow-up report. It is a great comfort to the rest of us while we get on with other things, all of which are much less important than what we are discussing today, to feel that they are looking after these matters on our behalf. Having said that—and I really mean it—the only remaining service that I can usefully perform today is to draw attention to those matters in which I have the closest interest, on which the committee seems to have made out a strong case and in respect of which the Government’s response has been the most feeble.

First, I am delighted that we will opt in to the existing European Council decision on Europol, but I can see no good reason for not opting in now to the new regulations when they come forward. The only reason given by the Government is that they want to wait to see the completed text in case there is something that they do not like. That might be a good answer if we were talking about some non-proven field but it is not a good answer in relation to Europol, with which we are all, happily, very familiar.

Secondly, like the committee, I am glad that we are remaining in Eurojust, but I urge the Government also to remain in the European judicial network. Here, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said. The more co-operation we can have across national boundaries the better. The only answer given by the Home Secretary for not accepting this recommendation is that we all already talk sufficiently with each other in respect of these matters, but that is a completely inadequate answer.

Thirdly, I come to the European probation order. It is not one of the 35 measures but I can give no better reason for opting in to it than that it was suggested that we do so by Sir Scott Baker. For the reasons he gave—and there are no better reasons from no better man—I suggest that we should opt back in to it. Once again, the Government have given no reason for not doing so.

Lastly, I want to refer to the question of the court’s jurisdiction. I simply do not understand what the Government’s position is on this and I would be very glad if, in his reply, the noble Lord could give us an explanation.

I have come to the end but my final point is perhaps the most important. I urge the Government to press on with the negotiation with all possible urgency for two reasons: first, to avoid, if possible, the need for any transition arrangements and, above all, to avoid a last-minute gap appearing in the structure, which could be truly disastrous; and, secondly, to give us enough time to prepare for the next debate, which has been promised and at which we will have to make a crucial decision.

17:14

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, given the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the other speeches, my noble friend on the Front Bench has a number of questions to answer. I can assure him that I shall not ask any questions; rather, I will try to sketch in some of the background that has led to the criticisms and problems that have been referred to extensively. I do not need to add to them.

When we see the manifestos of the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats, we may be able to analyse why some of these problems have arisen. They are not very far deferred but, when we see them, both manifestos may not read exactly the same. As a general comment on what has been said, it can be quite risky to live in the ivory tower where you think process is more important than outcome.

I was a recent member of Sub-Committee E. The two reports are very professional and admirable, and I am grateful to the two chairmen for the way in which the reports stayed with the evidence that the committee received with great accuracy and professionalism. In the light of the reports, particularly the first, it is quite surprising that the Government—if they had only considered the circumstances of the 130 and the 35 and your Lordships’ report—ever reached the decision they came to. We all agree that it is entirely sensible for the 28 members, 18 of whom are in the eurozone, to co-operate on the matters covered in the two reports. There seems absolutely no argument for not continuing that co-operation, whatever the political situation may be or may become.

As a subsidiary question, the Union does not seem to have a good way of repealing and reforming things, and it may not have been unreasonable to point that out at the time. However, the missing dimension is politics. I do not see how, after a 65-year journey from the beginnings of Europe, any decision now will escape political consideration as well as administrative and sensible co-operation consideration. The degree of political and constitutional change has been enormous since 1949—Strasbourg; Winston Churchill making his speech; the avoidance of war being foremost in everyone’s mind; some formidable political figures; the solution to the relationship between France and Germany, leading to the creation of the iron and steel community and so on; and always, of course, Soviet Russia and the threat of the Cold War.

The France-Germany dimension is now essentially solved. There may be a residual risk but it is nothing like the risk that was experienced by Europe from around 1870 until 1945. With that record, Europe had a lot to answer for, including the global reach of its colonial pretensions, from which we are still suffering today.

Does Europe have the capacity to start the third world war? I hardly think so. Then it was NATO and the Cold War, but if we look at the United Nations, which is comprised of nearly 200 countries, the picture has completely changed, and it does not need me to spell out the details of those changes. There is a big political question, but the question has changed from that of 65 years ago and indeed that of 30 years ago, before the Berlin Wall came down. What is the right place for 28 countries in a relatively declining Europe with around 5% of the world’s population? I do not think that the answer is self-evident, although sometimes when we consider matters European, there is an assumption that it is.

To me, this is no time for being inward-looking and thinking that these 28 countries are as important as they used to be and that nothing has changed in their relationships and potential relationships with the rest of the world. It is not a time when one can be confident that some journey to a Utopian version of western democracy will work. There is no doubt that there are people in the European system who, although they do not always tell us exactly what they are thinking, believe that they are on some Utopian journey to a version of western democracy. Past Utopian experiments have been patchy and some have been disastrous. There is not the same welcome for western democracy all over the world as we expected only a short time ago there might be. Indeed, one of our biggest problems is that there are quite a number of places we can name where there is no prospect of western democracy and the rule of law as we understand them. We have to think with great care about the European Union’s place in the wider world and not concentrate too closely on our own local problems.

The people of Europe are disenchanted, nervous and uncertain about what is happening. I have always been a keen European, but something is wrong: what exactly is it? Responses crying for the populist approach do not seem to answer the question, because who can draw the line with any accuracy between populism and being rightly in touch with public opinion? I associate myself with the big and uncertain question: where are we going? Are 28 disparate European countries to call for the end of the nation state? I think not. Will the world benefit from an inflexible European bloc? There must be doubts about that. We need, I think, a brand of political leadership of which there is no sign at present.

17:23

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a matter the importance of which goes far beyond the individual sub-committees which have been concerned with these reports, so without any hesitation I feel it right to intervene in this particular debate. I am particularly glad to be here today because I heard in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, what I think was the most devastating account of bad government that I have heard in all my 27 years of service in this place and in the other Chamber. I realise that those 27 years only just pass the halfway point of the career of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.

This is an occasion when the Government would be well advised to listen to what is being said about them. I am sure that the Minister will have listened because I know him very well and he is the sort of person who believes strongly in listening to Parliament and that it is essential for Ministers to do that carefully. I also think I know him well enough to know that he is more than capable when necessary of speaking extremely frankly and effectively in private to his ministerial colleagues. He may well feel the need to do that after this afternoon’s debate. What has been quite extraordinary this afternoon is the complete consensus among all speakers from all sides of the House about the gravity of the situation that has been revealed by the Select Committee’s reports.

That consensus was not in any way detracted from by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who on the whole is always very keen to find a way, if he possibly can, of defending the Government. He made a number of interesting geopolitical observations but he could not find a single defence of the way in which the Government have acted in this matter.

It has not been quoted already so I will read to the House one part of the committee’s criticisms of the way in which the Government have proceeded. I think the whole House will agree that this is parliamentary language, this is measured language, but it is more than justified language. Paragraph 106 of the report dated last October says:

“In our view, this lack of analytical rigour and clarity regarding evidence drawn upon is regrettable. Despite the length of its gestation, Command Paper 8671 showed signs of having been hastily put together. We are disappointed that the Command Paper presented both the 35 measures which the Government intend to rejoin and the 95 they do not intend to rejoin in an unconvincing manner. We regret that the grounds on which the Government made their selection of measures to seek to rejoin were not set out persuasively in the EMs”.

It is very unusual that a committee expresses itself quite as strongly as that. It is quite evident that the Government have done a thoroughly shoddy piece of work.

It is quite extraordinary that there was no consultation or impact assessment on this occasion. Surely consultation and impact assessments are now routinely regarded as essential prerequisites for good legislation in all sophisticated democratic countries. That is true, I am sure, of most if not all of our partners in the EU; it is certainly true in the United States; it is certainly true in the European Commission in its legislative role before it prepares legislative directives. One has to wonder why the Government of this country on this occasion decided simply that they were not required or could be dispensed with.

It is quite clear that there was simply no analysis of the national interest before these decisions were taken about opting out and then opting back in. This whole expensive farce—expensive in terms of not merely the cost over several years of all the negotiations that have been made necessary by this extraordinary decision but the real cost of the uncertainties created, the gaps that occur in capability or in co-operation as we have opted out of something and have not got back a suitable alternative—was gone into in a mood of complete and utter frivolity, without any sense at all of how the national interest was being impacted.

If one reads the individual government excuses for the decisions they have taken to opt out of individual measures, there is not a single occasion where there is an actual concrete argument stating that a specific national interest would be negatively impacted if we remained committed to the original measures in the justice and home affairs deal—not a single one. What actually happens is that on every occasion the Government say either, “Well, we are doing it by some other means”, or, “It does not matter too much”, or, “Maybe there is another way of achieving the same effect if we really try hard”.

I will give the House a flavour of some of that. Under the minimum standard measures, the excuse is that it, “adds little practical value”. The Government do not deny that there may be some practical value. There is no suggestion for a moment that there is any negative value. There is no suggestion that it would be against the national interest to opt in to those measures, but the best the Government can come up with is, “adds little practical value”.

Then, let us take the three Europol council decisions. Following the decision to opt back in to Europol, there was no decision to opt back in to the subsequent European Council decisions. The Government state in their defence:

“The UK has already issued the declaration as required by Article 2 of this measure and has therefore already designated Europol as the central office for combating euro counterfeiting. The measure does not set out any ongoing requirements following the issue of this declaration”.

In other words, there is no cost and no gain. So why waste time? Why waste money? Why waste political good will? Why waste, for that matter, the time of this House, which is just a very small part in this whole sorry exercise? There is no reason whatever. The Government say that the second council decision following the Europol opt-in measure has,

“no material impact on UK participation”

in Europol—again, a complete negative. So it goes on.

Another example, which has already been mentioned, is the racism and xenophobia directive. We were ahead of the game there: I think we may have been the first country to introduce a race relations Act and to subsequently introduce legislation in this country which made an offence of hate crimes. However, we have decided to opt out for the reason that, as the Government put it,

“the UK already meets the requirements of this measure in domestic legislation”.

What an awful pity to take our name away from a convention simply because we are already implementing it. Are we going to do that throughout the whole range of international treaties, so that where we are actually implementing something we take our name off the treaty? What an extraordinary idea. So the sad story proceeds.

What do the Government have to say about the European judicial network? Why do we have to opt out of that? What is the burning national interest that requires us to make an enormous fussation over it? The Government’s answer is that,

“it may be possible to maintain those contacts without formally participating in this Council Decision”.

Why “may” be possible? Why replace the indicative with the subjunctive? Why create an uncertainty where there is now, or could otherwise be, a certainty? It does not make sense at all. Why pay a price for a negative gain? The noble Lord who is sitting on the Front Bench is a logical man and must find it difficult to explain conduct of that kind.

Driving disqualifications have already been mentioned. Here again, it is quite extraordinary. We have got ourselves in a situation where we have said we are going to renegotiate a bilateral deal with the Republic of Ireland, which takes time and uses good will. It is actually a farce, because everybody knows it would be much easier to remain party to the original directive in the first place. If we need to protect British subjects from drivers who have been disqualified in the Republic of Ireland, why do we not need to protect British subjects and residents of this country from drivers who may have been disqualified in France, Belgium, Germany, Spain or any of the other countries from which millions of drivers come here through the Eurotunnel and on the ferries? It does not make the slightest sense.

If anybody had any doubt about the Government’s lack of good faith—I use that serious term advisedly—in this whole matter or that the Government have never actually wanted to look at or make a proper analysis of the national interest before reaching decisions in this area, let me provide absolutely conclusive evidence. The Government have been engaged in an exercise which has been widely promoted as being a great attempt definitively to decide what is the national interest in our relationship with the European Union: where we should better do things on our own and where we can better achieve our national objectives jointly by taking part in EU initiatives or by becoming a party to EU directives. That is called a balance of competences exercise and everybody in this House is extremely familiar with it. The Government, knowing that this particular decision was coming up, deliberately scheduled the examination of the criminal justice and policing aspects of the balance of competences review to start in spring 2014 and to come to an end only in the autumn of 2014—obviously far too late to influence decisions about opting in and opting out over justice and home affairs.

What an extraordinary thing to do. Is that because the Government thought that the whole exercise was a waste of time? Is it because the Government thought that it was not going to be a proper analysis of the national interest and because it, too, was a farce? Or is it because the Government thought that it would be a genuine analysis of the national interest and that it might be embarrassing to have it come out in time to influence a decision on opting in and opting out, because it might well say, “Don’t bother to opt out. There is no reason to opt out; it is not in the national interest to opt out; you’re much better staying 100% in so that you have maximum influence within the institutions and the decision-making structures”? Or is it because it was completely irrelevant and the Government were not interested in the national interest? I feel that that is the only conclusion that we can rationally come to in this House today. All the Government were interested in doing was buying off their Eurosceptics. This has been a party political issue for the Government from day one—100% party political. All they have been concerned about is the minimum price to get the Eurosceptics off their back and how much national interest had to be sacrificed in order to satisfy them. That is what it has been about, and it is about time that somebody honestly faced the facts and was prepared to say so.

17:35

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I am a very new member of Sub-Committee E, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and am therefore a real novice in this field as it is related to politics. I am just beginning to grasp the fact that there are things called reasoned opinions and explanatory memorandums which float around the various sub-committees and in and out of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

However, I am not a novice in criminal justice, policing and home affairs. I have listened with care to the detailed comments made by noble Lords and want to take a different angle from that taken so far. I want to talk about tone, and for a practical reason which I shall explain. During many debates that I have listened to in your Lordships’ House, particularly on education, a number of noble Lords have emphasised the importance of soft skills. Soft skills include language, the right approach to negotiation, facilitation, and concern to mediate and compromise rather than taking a fixed and unmovable certainty.

There can be no doubt that during the past 20 years the UK has been a leading light across Europe in the fields of justice, home affairs and policing. Many of the current structures and approaches in place across Europe have been designed and driven by the British. UK policing is also referenced as best practice across Europe, and I have heard it so referenced many times. Yet now we are seen to be withdrawing.

Last October, I made a visit to Brussels with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, who is not in her place today. Again and again as we spoke to officials of the Commission and the Parliament, of all nationalities in Europe, we heard sadness and bewilderment about what the UK was doing in relation to this opt-out. This opt-out was at the centre of their concern. They could not understand why the UK Government were moving in this direction. British officials in particular were concerned that this would diminish UK influence which it would be difficult to rebuild.

Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has explained, the Government have the right to exercise the opt-out. Indeed, it was a right negotiated—in my view unwisely, as others have said—by the previous Government. I also welcome the decision by the Government to opt back in to 35 measures. However, I ask the Minister to reflect with his colleagues on language, on their narrative, and on their approach to the next stage of justice and home affairs negotiations.

Let us consider the European arrest warrant. Of course there have been problems, but, on analysis, one sees that almost all those problems are not with the warrant itself but are problems abroad in relation to lengthy pre-trial detention, which would have happened when people had been extradited even if the EAW had not existed.

I just hope that the Minister and his Home Office and Ministry of Justice colleagues will start, as they renegotiate the opt-in, to emphasise the successes of the European arrest warrant, such as the solving of the Irish border criminal justice problem after 70 years. No return to the Costa del Crime is wanted. Or there is the arrest in Italy of Hussain Osman, the attempted bomber of 21 July 2005. These are marvellous successes that the new system brought in. No country in Europe can combat terrorists, paedophiles and organised criminals without the European Union justice and home affairs structures and processes. Putting it bluntly, an argument with UKIP should not be the reason that representatives of a responsible Government do not admit or celebrate the successes of some of those structures.

This is not just political but practical. Over my career, I have watched confidence being built between the police forces of Europe. I know it is there now; it was not there before. There were 90 years of distrust between the UK police forces and the Garda Síochána. There were decades of frustration between UK and Spanish police. There was the obvious sign of rapport when the Greeks called in Scotland Yard to investigate the murder of the British attaché in Athens. The co-operation with the Italians I already mentioned was almost inconceivable in the years before the JHA reforms. We need to hold on to these achievements—and recognise that holding on to them is the purpose of the renegotiation. The renegotiation does not sit by itself but has a purpose to make people safer across Europe.

17:41

[Viscount Bridgeman (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for this debate and pay tribute to the clerks—Michael Torrance and Chris Atkinson, and especially the special adviser Paul Dowling—for the very personal help they have given me. Also, what a privilege it has been to have the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, working so well with this sub-committee.

I have particular pleasure in following the noble Lord, Lord Blair, because I want to say something more about Europol, which is of course one of the success stories of the EU. Let us be thankful that it at least is one of the measures we propose to opt in to. From its beginning in the 1990s, Europol has developed into an organisation with an unrivalled intelligence base and close co-operation with the police forces of the European Union and indeed round the world, examples of which the noble Lord gave. It is fortunate currently to have an outstanding director, Rob Wainwright of the United Kingdom, from whom Sub-Committees E and F heard evidence on two occasions in 2013.

It is important to note that no national police sovereignty is ceded to Europol. The role of Europol is purely supportive. Its effectiveness centres round its database, to which the UK is the largest contributor. Of its many successes in cross-border operations, Mr Wainwright cited Operation Rescue over two years, which involved 32 national police forces in breaking up an internet child abuse ring resulting in over 100 arrests. Another measure of its success is the number of states outside the European Union queuing up to join Europol, including the United States. A particular feature of the Europol set-up is the establishment of national liaison offices within its headquarters, staffed by police officers from each particular member state. Most importantly, it is run on a very lean budget of 0.8% of the total EU budget.

As I have said, the Government have made the decision to opt in to Europol. However, at our first meeting with Mr Wainwright in January 2013—that is, before the Home Secretary’s announcement—both Sub-Committees E and F, because it was a joint meeting, were left in no doubt of the adverse consequences there would have been for the UK had we not opted in. Denial of automatic access to the database would have been a huge handicap involving costly and time-consuming negotiations between the UK, the union and other parties to establish some form of substitute relationship, and it is reasonable to assume that crime prevention with a cross-border element would have been severely affected in the United Kingdom. Of course, none of this will now be necessary so, so far, I have little to criticise the Minister on.

I return to a point referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I would just point out that Sub-Committee F expressed disappointment with the Government that, having made the decision, they have chosen not to opt in fully forthwith so that they can play a fuller part in negotiations over a new Europol structure. The Government’s reply to this criticism in our report advises,

“we are actively seeking changes to the new Europol proposal to address these points before making a decision on whether to opt in”.

It goes on:

“We are currently fully engaged in negotiations and continue to work with other Member States to push for the changes we need. We have been present at all meetings when changes to the draft legislation have been discussed and are able to intervene as and when we wish”.

I cannot avoid further quoting so that we sleep easy in our beds:

“While we do not have a vote, other Member States and the EU Institutions value our experience in this area and take our concerns very seriously”.

I am sure Her Majesty’s Government have their own reasons for this somewhat “now we’re here, now we’re not” approach, and I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that the interests of the United Kingdom in this most important of European institutions, in which it plays so crucial a part, are indeed being fully addressed.

17:46

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I am a member of EU Sub-Committee F, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and I thank him for introducing this debate and for his masterly, clear and comprehensive exposition of this complex and difficult subject and the issues at stake. I agree with what the noble Lord said and the questions he posed the Minister.

As we heard, the scrutiny of the Government’s opt-out decision was conducted jointly by Sub-Committees E and F, and I express my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Bowness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for their skilful chairing and for enabling the EU Committee to publish the two reports, which the Government have described as,

“an extremely thorough analysis of a complex issue”.

It is, therefore, extremely disappointing that we are debating these two reports so late in the process, when substantive decisions have more or less been taken. Justifiable criticisms have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others about the way the Government have engaged with Parliament, and I very much hope that for the rest of the process there will be timely, proper and meaningful engagement with Parliament and the devolved Administrations.

During the course of our initial inquiry, it was notable that the extensive evidence we took was so overwhelmingly in one direction; that is, opposed to opt-out. The most compelling evidence came from practitioners. As something of a newcomer to the Select Committee, I began to wonder whether the whole thing was necessary. I knew the Government had the right to look at it, but I began to wonder whether, before making the announcement, they should have consulted and saved themselves a great deal of unnecessary work and the unnecessary anxiety that has been caused.

The most compelling evidence came from practitioners. At a seminar organised by the EU Select Committee, Helen Malcolm QC, vice-chair of the Bar Council’s EU law committee and chair of its criminal law sub-committee, said that, as a lawyer and not a politician, she considered it remarkable that every witness with experience in the criminal justice field had considered some of the measures to be vital and that it was equally remarkable that no measure had been identified by anyone as being bad for the UK.

We now have the Government’s response to the two reports. They agree with the conclusion of our first report that cross-border co-operation between the UK and other member states on police and criminal justice matters is crucial. Furthermore, the Command Paper published in July 2013 assessed none of the measures as being harmful to UK interests or having any negative impact on fundamental rights.

The Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary say that the decision to rejoin 35 measures is based on what law enforcement agencies tell them works, balanced against the Government’s principled concerns about excessive European influence in these areas. A close examination of the reasons why the Government do not intend to opt into some measures, however, shows that concerns about excessive European influence are a dominant factor, rather than the views of the practitioners and the importance of the cross-border co-operation. The grounds on which the Government have made the selection of measures not to join are not necessarily based on evidence or persuasively argued. In some instances, their approach is inconsistent. In the words of the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, they are “philosophical”, and not based on evidence one way or the other.

This inconsistent approach is clear in the case of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Despite expressing concerns about the potentially negative impact of extending the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the measures, the Government have opted into most post-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures, thus bringing with them the jurisdiction of the CJEU. During our initial inquiry, we considered this matter in some depth. We concluded that the CJEU, which has jurisdiction only over matters of EU law, had an important role to play, alongside domestic courts, in safeguarding fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law. CJEU jurisdiction was welcomed by many witnesses as being helpful in ensuring the consistent application and interpretation of police and criminal justice measures, and this is accepted by the Government.

The Government cite the prospect of unexpected judgments, concerns about the drafting of measures, and minimising the possibility of an adverse judgment as reasons for not accepting the full jurisdiction. Any court is liable to make unexpected judgments. Citing poor drafting of measures as a reason for not joining is not convincing, given the rigorous process of negotiation to which these measures were subject and the fact that they were supported by the Government at the time of their adoption.

With regard to minimum standards in criminal law matters, it appears that the Government regard participation in such measures as unnecessary, in the sense that the UK could continue to act in such a way as to fulfil the requirements of each measure even if it did not formally participate in it. This argument does not take into account the fact that any future Government could repeal decisions that made the UK compliant with the current minimum standards. The Lord Chancellor sees these measures as “the Europeanisation of” legal “decision-making” and underplays their practical significance.

For example, Europol said that the minimum-standard measures act to level the playing field for practitioners and eliminate arbitrary differences between jurisdictions. Europol also said that UK’s withdrawal from these measures would remove legal certainty and create a perception among law enforcement practitioners and criminals that the UK is outside the zone of co-operation—co-operation which the Government see as crucial.

In the long run, opting out of these measures would also affect the UK’s ability to influence and participate in law enforcement co-operation. It would diminish the UK’s position and reputation, particularly in areas where it has been a leader. One such measure, which has already been mentioned, is the framework decision on xenophobia and racism. The UK is a world leader in this area and deserves a great deal of credit for its commitment to, and strategy for, tackling racism and xenophobia. We have set a standard, and withdrawal from these measures will send a negative signal, not least to the minority communities in this country, and will inhibit our ability to influence other member states. I therefore urge the Government to review their decision not to join this measure.

On the European Judicial Network, the Government are again at odds with the view of practitioners. The Government say that the European Judicial Network adds little or no value and state that while they believe that the ideas underpinning the network have merit, they do not consider that the network is a measure that underpins practical co-operation. Practitioners argue the contrary. The Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland say that the Government should seek to join this measure as it could help to address the lack of training and awareness of legal practitioners regarding police and criminal justice measures. This view was supported by the Bar Council and the Lord Advocate.

We were told that the network provides Scottish prosecutors with a rich source of advice on national law in other member states and is a valuable tool in the armoury of prosecutors. It is the practical co-operation that is valued by practitioners and the Government should pay heed to that. The Government’s reasons for not joining the European probation order also deserve comment. They say they support the principle behind this measure but do not consider that its benefits outweigh its risks. They say that no evidence has been put forward that outweighs their concerns. The Government’s concern that offenders might not be properly supervised by other countries and that there might be complications should their possible return to the UK arise, can be resolved, as we stated in our report, at European level. Furthermore, the Government have not dealt with the point put forward by the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland that joining this measure could prove a useful alternative to a European arrest warrant being issued for a sentence imposed in default, thus reducing the potential number of European arrest warrants issued.

In the evidence that we heard, we were also told that this measure would be helpful to offender management and public safety, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in particular, and that because there was no meaningful consultation, the unique relationship between the two states has been ignored. This deserves further consideration. Finally, I hope that the Government will take note of the points made in our report about coherence, transitional arrangements, negotiating process and future engagement with Parliament, as well as the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, about impact statements.

17:57

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. I express my gratitude to the committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, my noble friend Lady Corston and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who cannot be with us today, for their roles in chairing the sub-committees. Although this is the first opportunity for a formal debate on the initial report, we have used that document to inform other debates on this issue. It has been extremely valuable, not just for the debate but for anybody wanting a greater understanding of the issues involved in opting out and opting back in again. I welcome the fact that we have a debate, at last, on the first report and on the follow-up.

Too often it seems to me that debates on anything to do with Europe become pro/anti debates without any real regard for some of the very serious issues involved. That must be very frustrating to many people who may not themselves be intensely political but who want to know and understand what the debate is about. I feel that many politicians would do far better to deal in fact rather than just try to persuade others of their own point of view. These reports clearly fulfil that function of trying to deal purely in facts. They provide a forensic and comprehensive examination of the Government’s decision to opt out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then seek—and “seek” is the operative word, since there are no guarantees—to opt back in to those that they consider to be essential.

These are not decisions to be taken lightly. A Government’s first duty is to the security and safety of their citizens and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and others make very clear, that security and safety is best served by European co-operation. The Government have to accept that the process of opting out and then, perhaps, opting back in again to some measures is a risk. I share the concerns that the Government’s whole approach to this issue has been more political than practical. No evidence has ever been presented of any harm to the UK from not exercising the permanent opt-out, but a great deal of harm is possible from any failure and delay in opting back in to the 35 or more measures in the analysis given by the committee. It seems to me, as has been said by other noble Lords, that it has had a lot more to do with placating the anti-European lobby inside and outside the Conservative Party. We have had the absurdity of the numbers game between the two government parties about how many measures should be opted back into. Surely, it has to be about the substance and value of the measures, not how many. The first report came to the conclusion that the case had not been made for triggering the permanent opt-out. That was repeated following investigations that led to the follow-up report.

Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, I also looked at previous debates, not so that I would not say something different but to make sure that I was not repeating myself. However, I will repeat myself in this case, as in previous years I have asked different Ministers the same questions but never had a satisfactory answer. Those questions are: how many of the measures that the Government want to permanently opt out of are relevant to the UK? How many are currently being used? I should add, how many are in any way harmful to the UK? If I can get an answer to those today, it would be extremely useful. What I am trying to get to, in an easily understood format, is what the precise impact would be on UK citizens of the measures that the Government want to permanently opt out of. The Government themselves claim that a number of the measures are defunct, so have no impact. So was this ever a serious exercise, or was it always political posturing on Europe?

I am grateful to the committee for the very helpful table at the back of the second report that gives details, including most of the information for which I have asked Ministers on more than one occasion. The follow-up report gives more specific information on the committee’s analysis of those measures. The committee clearly shares my frustration at how the Government presented this information and their assessment of the measures. Paragraph 19 of the follow-up report in response to the Government’s evidence and comments on that is devastating for the Government:

“In our view, this lack of analytical rigour and clarity regarding evidence drawn upon is regrettable. Despite the length of its gestation, Command Paper 8671 showed signs of having been hastily put together. We are disappointed that the Command Paper presented both the 35 measures which the Government intend to rejoin and the 95 they do not intend to rejoin in an unconvincing manner. We regret that the grounds on which the Government made their selection of measures to seek to rejoin were not set out persuasively in the EMs”—

that is, the explanatory memorandums. That is a devastating critique of the Government’s process.

The committee is also highly critical of the Government’s engagement with Parliament. Noble Lords will recall the dismay of your Lordships’ House on the day of the debate, 23 July, when the government response to the initial response was so obviously rushed out just hours before the debate started. Comments that it had been delayed to produce a more comprehensive report did not appear evident from the content or style of the report.

I hope the Minister will take back to the Government the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that this House takes these matters very seriously and it wishes them to be taken seriously by government. We want the time to fully consider the implications and to digest and consider government reports. Obviously, nobody wants to see undue delays in consideration, but a House that has the duty of scrutiny and takes that responsibility seriously is understandably offended if unable to adequately fulfil that function. The report does not suggest a timescale but it does indicate what information would be useful, and perhaps essential, in allowing for proper consideration and decision-making.

I want to turn to some of the detail of the follow-up report and the specific measures referred to. As the report reminds us, your Lordships’ House previously endorsed the 35 measures that the Government will seek to rejoin as being in the national interest, and the report welcomes the other opt-ins announced by the Government. Perhaps the most significant and the greatest debate in your Lordships’ House is on the European arrest warrant. We found it inconceivable that the Government wanted to opt out, and I have previously provided examples of cases in your Lordships’ House where it had been invaluable. In a previous debate, I was also critical of the Government’s refusal to implement the European supervision order, which ironically had caused some of the problems about which the Government complained in the European arrest warrant. As I said before, we accept that there were problems and will further consider the Government's proposed reforms, as the Government have now recognised that reform is the way forward and are not just dismissing the EAW as worthless. We also welcome that the Government have now agreed to implement the ESO, so that it is easier for those bailed outside the UK to be brought back and bailed in the UK.

I shall now turn briefly to other areas in which the committee recommended an opt-in. Its argument in each of those areas is that there is a case for saying that the national interest would be best served if the UK were covered by the measures. Clearly, the Government do not accept those arguments, and I would find it helpful if the Minister could expand on the reasons why they support a permanent opt-out from those measures, particularly as there is a recurring theme—from the committee, from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and from others—that the Government’s explanatory memoranda were inadequate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, spoke about action to tackle racism and homophobia, and the fact that the UK has been a world leader and a trailblazer on this issue. The concern raised is about the message that the opt-out sends, and whether it is appropriate that, as a world leader and trailblazer, we should step back and give the impression that this matter is not as important to us as it is to other European countries.

Another issue of concern in judicial areas, which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is the European Judicial Network. I am not a lawyer, but I found it interesting to note that the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland both recommended opting back in, specifically referring to their view that it would help address lack of training and awareness. The network was supported by the Lord Advocate as frequently being used to seek assistance with overseas European arrest warrants. I would welcome a response from the Minister on this subject, because I am not clear whether the Government are saying that it is not valuable, or that the points are being fully addressed in other ways. I would like some clarification of why the Government think it would be harmful, or prejudice the UK’s interests, if we were part of the European Judicial Network.

I would also be grateful to hear far more from the Minister about the proposed permanent opt-out from the European probation order, which the noble Baroness also mentioned. It has had broad support in the legal profession, and the Northern Ireland Justice Minister considers that it would be particularly helpful in relation to border issues between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I have to ask the Minister a question, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned specifically: what consideration did the Government give to the part of the UK that has a common land border with another country? It is of interest to hear the detailed arguments on this subject, particularly given the submission by David Ford, the Justice Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, expressed his concern about the lack of consideration by the Government of such cross-border issues. The European probation order is a significant measure, and I am not yet convinced that the Government have made a powerful enough case for a permanent opt-out. I have to ask the Minister: did the Government’s proposed privatisation of the probation service have any bearing on this decision?

We have heard from other noble Lords about driving disqualifications, and the committee has, very reasonably, asked the Government to reconsider their position on this subject. As a Northern Ireland Minister I had responsibility for road safety at one point, and a significant issue then—it remains one now—was the difference in regulations, penalties and offences between the two jurisdictions. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to introducing legislation to deal with those, but why are such considerations important for that border but not for those between other European countries? I know that the Government have cited costs, but can the Minister say more about what those costs are, given that we are talking about an important area of public safety, and that we are already taking steps with regard to Northern Ireland?

I shall not go into detail on all the other committee recommendations, because in conclusion I want come back to the subject of process. As the Government move into negotiations, these will have to be intense and focused. Where the Government want to opt back in, it is clear that that needs to be done as soon as possible. What consideration has been given to any interregnum there may be, and what mitigating measures might the Government introduce in such cases?

I entirely agree with the committee about keeping both Houses informed. The committee recommends regular reports, but I must express my concern that “regular” may mean something different to the Government from what it means to the committee. We have been through this before—for example, when we expect a report to be presented in the spring, and then spring moves into summer. Regular reports to Parliament would be very welcome. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case, and tell us what timescale and method the Government are considering?

The idea, put forward in the report, of a review of the operation of the opt-outs, and of what happens when we opt back in again, is also welcome. What plans are in place to assess the impact? Without greater clarity at the beginning of the opt-out process about the opt-in process, the exercise has always been, and remains, a bit of a gamble.

I greatly welcome the committee’s report but the part I quoted, which has given me the most cause for concern, is its paragraph 19 about the,

“lack of analytical rigour and clarity”,

in the evidence on which the Government have based their decision. I agree that that is deeply regrettable, especially on such important issues as policing and criminal justice, which strike at the very heart of a Government’s first duty to their citizens—that of ensuring their security and safety. I hope that the Government will take note of, and respond in a positive way to, the criticisms and act differently in the future to ensure proper and beneficial consideration of their proposals. In future, I hope that when we have such reports before us we will have timely debates, because these debates contribute enormously and would help the Government in decision-making.

18:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, before I tackle the issues raised in this debate I extend my thanks to the European Union Committee of this House for its ongoing work in this matter. This Government are extremely grateful to the committee; we do not necessarily agree but we are grateful for the work that is being done. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in the comments that she made about its work. The committee informs this House and the Government, and I am aware of the diligence with which it undertakes its work. We are aware of the role that Parliament has in scrutinising these matters and it should do so informed by the work of its committees, so I pay a genuine tribute to them all.

The committee’s initial report was helpful in informing the Government’s decision about the measures that we are seeking to rejoin, and I found its follow-up report to be particularly thought-provoking. Taken together, and it has been useful to be able to do that today, these two reports represent an extremely thorough analysis of a complex issue. The committee has produced a formidable body of work for the Government to consider.

On 23 July, I set out to the House my openness to debating the committee’s report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for making that possible by calling this debate today. I also thank him for his excellent work and insight into this matter as chairman of the sub-committee. The Government are appreciative of the committee’s continued scrutiny of these important matters and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Boswell and Lord Bowness, neither of whom are in their place today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for their chairmanship of the committees. These are sincere thanks, in which I join with the tribute paid to their work by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.

I hope that noble Lords will accept that some of the questions I have been asked are complex and difficult. I do not want to mislead the House in any of my responses and with the consent of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I intend to write to him and to copy in all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and place a copy of that in the Library. This will enable me to deal with those matters which I am not necessarily able to deal with today. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that type of commentary, which we have had before when discussing these issues.

Scrutiny can be an iterative and long-running process, especially on a matter such as this. Some have argued that the Government have not made the case for exercising the opt-out. On that point, I think we have to agree to disagree. The case for exercising the opt-out has been clearly set out and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, set out in his opening speech, the House has already endorsed the Government’s decision. The House has also endorsed the Government’s decision to seek to rejoin the 35 measures set out in Command Paper 8671. I am pleased that the committee is persuaded by the evidence that the Government have set out to Parliament. I am also pleased that the committee has reopened its inquiry. Its views on the measures that we are not seeking to rejoin are welcomed and the Government have responded in full on those issues.

Before I turn to the points raised during the debate, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to holding another vote on the final package of measures that we will apply to rejoin.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Does the noble Lord, for whom I and everyone here have an immense respect, agree that the whole issue can be distilled into a single question: how is it sane and sensible and sincere for the Government to place in jeopardy 35 measures of considerable worth in the expectation of, at best, a minuscule advantage in respect of 95 other matters that are either wholly irrelevant, non-operative or in no way injurious to our interests? I respectfully suggest that that is the issue.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As the noble Lord knows, the Government are exercising an opt-out that was provided for by negotiations by a previous Government. Noble Lords will expect the Government to exercise their discretion in this matter and to seek the endorsement of Parliament, as they have done on this occasion. I make no apology to the noble Lord for the decision that this Government have made. It was a decision that was anticipated by the previous Government in their negotiations.

As I was saying, before I return to the points raised, I confirm that there will be another vote on the package of measures that we will apply to rejoin. It is important that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise this matter fully. I am very happy to commit myself to replying for the Government during that debate later this year.

I start by responding to some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his excellent speech. I could not agree with all that he was saying about the Government’s performance or decision-making or role, but he set out a number of important points that have helped to guide this debate and I am happy to reply to them.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Sharkey addressed the point of whether there are measures that are detrimental to the UK and the UK’s national interest. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, asked if this were the case. That is one way to assess these measures. However, is not the way in which the Government have assessed them. The Government have looked at how each measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure and whether there would be detrimental impact on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms. We have considered the impact that the measure has on civil rights and liberties. We believe that the 35 measures that we are seeking to rejoin meet these criteria.

The noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked why the Government have opted in to post-Lisbon measures if we have concerns about European Court of Justice jurisdiction. The Government consider that there is always a risk attached in terms of European Court of Justice jurisdiction. All Governments have faced this when we decide to participate in measures—pre-Lisbon or post-Lisbon. However, in certain cases, it will be in the national interest for the UK to participate in these measures, and the Government will accept that risk, given the wider benefits of the instruments in question.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord keeps on referring to the ECJ as a risk—as a cost, as it were. Is it not the case that it is also in many cases a reassurance and an asset? Over time, is it not the case that we have won far more cases before the ECJ than we have ever lost?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Of course, but I am just saying that there is an unpredictability about outcomes which all Governments have had to face, and it is a matter that Governments are entitled to weigh in the balance. However, I accept totally that the European Court of Justice also exists to protect things that we consider valuable, too.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the importance of co-operation.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I wish one could persuade the Government not to treat the unpredictability of a court of law as a reason not to be subject to its jurisdiction. I hope that every court of law in this country is unpredictable. If it were predictable, we would not have the rule of law in this country.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If I say that the noble Lord makes an academic point, I do not mean to dismiss it, but it is a point which is based on a theoretical view of jurisprudence. As a non-lawyer I would say that the law can have an unpredictability about it even in such well established legal proceedings as we have in this country. Indeed, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will agree with that analysis.

I was about to talk about our co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. I felt that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made an important point. That is why we have engaged constructively with the Northern Ireland Executive and David Ford throughout this process. That is why we continue to hold productive discussions about these matters at all levels.

The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Davies, and my noble friends Lord Sharkey and Lord Bridgeman also raised the associated Europol measures. I should like to reiterate our support for Europol on its current terms and our intention to rejoin the main Europol measure. However, we do not believe that we need to rejoin the associated measures to do so. Many of the provisions in these measures are legal padding and duplicate the detailed provisions of the main measure. As a result, these measures have no material impact on UK participation or, for that matter, on any other state. They have no impact on our ability to co-operate with others through Europol.

The noble Lord, Hannay, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, also identified the probation order as one that we should seek to rejoin. The Government’s position on this measure is set out in full in the response to the committee’s report of 31 December. Only 12 member states have implemented this measure and, to the best of our knowledge, it has never been used. As a result, there is no clear understanding as to how this measure will work in practice and thus very little evidence on which to judge its effectiveness. That is why we are not seeking to rejoin this measure.

The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Davies, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of the European Judicial Network. As the Government set out in the response to the committee’s report, we believe that Eurojust is more effective than the European Judicial Network at bringing people together and ensuring that the right tools such as joint investigating teams are employed. That is why we are seeking to rejoin Eurojust.

A number of noble Lords raised the racism and xenophobia measures. These have also not been joined or opted out of, and we are not seeking to rejoin. Noble Lords know that this is a highly sensitive area. However, we are clear that our efforts—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to our lead in these matters—to tackle racism and xenophobia do not depend on a measure that adds little practical value. The UK will continue to be bound by the International Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Government will continue to set a national direction and to work at local level with professionals, the voluntary sector and communities to deal with local issues and priorities.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the convention on driving disqualifications. Let me first address the point about ditching the benefits of working with 26 other member states. Currently, this measure only operates between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, so there are no benefits to ditch. However, there are benefits to the bilateral agreement with Ireland. This will allow us to address some of the weakness of the instrument as it currently exists, which we would otherwise be unable to do.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way a second time. In the light of what he says, would it not be sensible to extend the directive to include the continental countries? There is an enormous amount of motor traffic between us and them in both directions. As I said in my speech, if we want to protect people from disqualified drivers in Ireland, why do we not protect our people from disqualified drivers coming from the continent?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We will be free to do that in the future. I am just reporting the current situation to the House. We have the freedom to do what we will in the future. It is a question of whether we want to be bound by a directive which at the moment is actually not delivering what the noble Lord has suggested.

The noble Lord also asked for an update on our negotiations with the Commission to rejoin measures. I can confirm that these continue at the technical level, and there are a lot of technical discussions involved in these matters. We intend to update Parliament as appropriate, but we must be mindful that this is a negotiation, and thus we cannot prejudice our position in these negotiations. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Lord, Lord Davies—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I would be grateful for a simple answer to a simple question. The Minister said that technical discussions had begun, and he did not wish to prejudice the position in negotiations. Have negotiations begun with the Commission and the Council, or have they not?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Exploratory talks have taken place and do so all the time. Formal negotiations have not started, and we need to be able to get some of the technical issues resolved before we enter into full negotiations. That is a reasonable position to take. Noble Lords would expect the Government to recognise their responsibility to the UK national interest in this respect. I hope that Parliament would understand the reasons why, at this point, the Government do not necessarily want to reveal the details of these negotiations. All I have said is that there will be opportunities, as these negotiations proceed, for reports to Parliament and for keeping Parliament and the citizens of this country informed about them.

There was a question about impact assessments, and I was going on to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, was particularly concerned about the impact assessments of the 95 measures the Government will not seek to rejoin. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention to provide, in good time, ahead of the second vote, an impact assessment on the measures that the Government will rejoin. I can also confirm that the Government will discuss the timing and format of the second vote with the chairmen of the relevant committees. However, at this stage, as the noble Baroness will know, we do not intend to provide impact assessments for those measures that we will not be joining.

I was asked what the Government’s view is of the legal test of coherence in Protocol 36. The noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Corston, were both concerned about this. The Government consider that in a number of areas the case law of the European Court of Justice makes it very clear that coherence means “legally effective” and so takes us further than the test of practical operability, also in Protocol 36.

I conclude by referring to two speeches made by noble Lords sitting behind me. The first was by my noble friend Lord Jopling, who took the Government to task in a pretty straightforward manner. I assure him that I take my role in replying to the concerns of Parliament extremely seriously. I will do my best to ensure that the circumstances in which he found himself do not recur, but I can only do my best on that.

I have been handed a correction. The coherence test takes us no further, I am told. I apologise if I misread the messages from the Box but this one has come down in big block letters so that I can correct myself. I was seeking to reassure my noble friend about those matters.

I should also like to comment on the speech of my noble friend Lord Eccles. I felt that he placed the debates that we have in this House on our membership of the European Community in the context of our global life—the global existence of our country. It was an extremely valuable contribution and something which, when we deal with the detail of some of these matters, we should always bear in mind.

Perhaps I may say one further, rather personal, thing. I am committed to making a success of the dialogue between the Government and this House. Mention was made of tone and language. I make a plea to noble Lords: let us please try to keep this dialogue on a good basis. I will be as open as I can be with noble Lords and will seek, as best I can, to keep the committees informed, but it is a two-way street. I would hate to think that we ended up having adversarial debates on an issue which is so important to the future of this country. That is a personal plea on which I conclude my contribution to this debate. I will be writing to noble Lords and I thank all who have participated in what has been a very worthwhile evening.

18:33

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. It has provided wide-ranging and effective coverage of a very complex subject, and I am grateful to your Lordships—both those who are and those who are not members of the two committees and the EU Select Committee.

I should also like to thank the Minister and to respond to his final remarks. He has, with the sincerity and good humour that characterise all his interventions in this House, drawn quite a lot of the sting from some of the very legitimate criticisms to which he has been subjected today. I hope he will reckon that he is held in great respect in this House by all Members and that that respect will be even more increased if he takes back the message from this House of the criticisms that have been levied, although not to him personally. I am grateful to him also for the offer to reply in writing. He has done this in previous debates and it is extremely valuable and welcome to all Members.

By necessity, this debate has been a great deal about process and technical detail and someone listening to it from outside might think that it was confusing. However, I wish to conclude by making a couple of remarks about the wider picture here. The internationalisation of crime is proceeding apace, and nowhere more so than in Europe. We may not have a perfect single market but the criminals have a single market from which they are not hesitating to benefit. We need, therefore, a far greater degree of international co-operation than we have ever had in the past. The legislation we have been discussing on which the Government have triggered the opt-out, the 133 measures, was not designed by a mad group of federalists in Brussels: it was designed by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the member states and every single one of them was agreed by unanimity. We must get away from the mindset which says, “This is imposed on us by Brussels and we should get out of it if we possibly can and if it is not going to be too costly to do so”. That is not a good mindset.

The hard fact is that the security of this country neither begins nor ends at the water’s edge any more: it goes far wider than that. The justice and home affairs part of the European Union’s activities is of great value to this country, and it is likely to be of even greater value if we do not wreck it in the process of this tricky negotiation which we have now undertaken. It is an odd negotiation because, in all my years of dealing with the European Union, it is the first time a British Government have deliberately put themselves at a disadvantage and then asked to get back into many things. It is a fairly odd state of affairs for which, as I said in my opening statement on a personal basis, I do not entirely blame the present Government, who had that mechanism foisted on them by the previous Government.

However, whatever it was, it is an uphill task. I end with the following. I am sure that all noble Lords wish the Minister and his colleagues the best chance of success in the negotiations they are undertaking. I was shocked to hear that six months after the Prime Minister notified the other member states of our decision to opt out of these measures, we still had not begun negotiation. We have all been around long enough to know what exploratory talks mean—and they do not mean negotiation. I hope the noble Lord and his colleagues will shortly come to the House and tell us that we have begun negotiation. Six months out of the 16 available have now passed and they have not led to very much. Our wishes are with the Government that they have success in this negotiation. It is in none of our interests that they should be blocked or fail, but that may require more political involvement and effort and energy than they have shown so far. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 6.39 pm.