House of Commons

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

Thursday 6 March 2014

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business Before Questions

Stephen Lawrence Independent Review

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 6 March 2014, of the Stephen Lawrence Independent Review: Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 6 March 2014, of the Stephen Lawrence Independent Review: Possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case, Summary of Findings.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to raise awareness of export support services among small and medium-sized businesses.

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

UK Trade & Investment has an extensive programme of awareness-raising activity that is directed at small and medium-sized businesses. That includes a national marketing campaign, “Exporting is GREAT”. More than 10 million people are expected to see the campaign and it should lead to about 3,000 additional businesses working with UKTI.

[Karen Lumley]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Clifford Springs in Redditch, which has a great record in exporting springs, for which Redditch is renowned? Will he tell Clifford Springs and other companies what more they can expect from UKTI?

[Michael Fallon]

I, too, congratulate Clifford Springs on its export success, particularly to the United States. UKTI has a team of 39 international trade advisers based in the west midlands. They have supported more than 1,400 companies across the region, including many companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. They also support more experienced companies and companies of all sizes with advice, information and practical support to build their exports.

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

The Minister will know that one sector in which exports are great for Britain is the motorsport sector. That is to be applauded. However, does he share my concern that some of the exporting that appears to be going on is the exporting of jobs? That is what is happening at Dunlop Motorsport in Birmingham. It seems to be exporting some jobs abroad, when it has been offered alternative sites in Birmingham and when his Department has been pressing it to stay in Birmingham. Will he redouble his efforts to persuade Dunlop Motorsport to stay in Birmingham, where it should be?

[Michael Fallon]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the company and it was the subject of a debate in the House recently. We will continue to do what we can. However, motorsport is an important and large business sector. I attended the Autosport exhibition in Birmingham recently, as the hon. Gentleman probably did. More than 45,000 people work in the industry across the country and it has a total value of more than £8 billion. We must do everything that we can to ensure that the sector continues to grow.

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

Exporting in the modern economy requires sustained financial support, yet the law in this country restricts to individual transactions the financial support for exports. I urge the Government to change the law so that we can have the support that is needed for exporters, small, medium and large.

[Michael Fallon]

I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend raises. I pay tribute to his efforts at the Department over two and a half years to back companies of all sizes in their export drive.

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

2. What recent assessment he has made of the availability of finance and the level of lending by banks to small businesses.

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

Gross lending to small businesses for the 12 months to January was 14% higher than in the same period a year ago, although net lending continues to contract. The Bank of England’s credit conditions survey reported, however, that:

“The overall availability of credit to the corporate sector increased significantly”

in the final quarter of 2013.

[Robert Flello]

I am really surprised by the answer that the Secretary of State has given, because small businesses in my constituency tell me that they are finding it almost impossible and often totally impossible to access the finance that they need. Lending to business is down after the failure of the Government’s Project Merlin, credit easing and funding for lending schemes. It now emerges that the business bank is just a rebadging of existing schemes. Why has the Secretary of State failed to learn from the Department’s mistakes and failures?

[Vince Cable]

Of course, there is a continuing credit problem for many small companies. That is very clear. There is a very different pattern among the significant banks. Lloyds is greatly expanding its lending, as is Santander. Some of the new banks, such as Shawbrook and Aldermore, are beginning to make an impression. That has been cancelled out by RBS, although its new management have indicated that they wish to expand its net lending considerably. The business bank is beginning to make a significant impact. It is not a rebadging. It is already out in the market, supporting new forms of non-conventional business finance.

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

Business intentions rely on confidence, and with business confidence at a 22-year high, figures from the Office for National Statistics show that business investment is up 8.5% on the previous year. Does that not show that business is not only confident about the economy, but about the policies of this Government?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, there is a high level of confidence, and it is reinforced by fact. Indeed, the output and spending figures are reinforcing the trend that the hon. Gentleman describes. There is, however, a continuing problem regarding credit to the small and medium-sized business sector. We are not complacent about that, and the interventions we are making will help.

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

Many businesses in my constituency tell me that their biggest problem is the withdrawal of overdrafts, and they are sometimes offered big and unwanted loans instead. Is the Secretary of State monitoring that trend, to ensure that banks are not fiddling the system to benefit themselves, and to attack small businesses that have cash-flow issues but do not need big loans?

[Vince Cable]

One positive thing is that we are now getting a growth of specialist institutions that provide small businesses with a type of finance—Aldermore provides asset-based financing or new kinds of invoice financing to deal with cash flow or investment as required. However, the hon. Lady is right to say that there is a particular problem in that area of the market.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I recently had the privilege of opening the first bank in my constituency to be approved under the new Government fast-track system—Paragon bank—and it was full of praise for the help it received from my right hon. Friend’s Department. Does he share my aspiration that that will herald the beginning of much greater diversity and choice in the banking sector, and particularly help for small businesses?

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is right and I thank her for her kind words. Ultimately, what will change the problem is breaking the traditional monopoly of the big four banks. Many new banks are now coming into existence, and the more flexible licensing regime operated by the regulators is playing a significant part. I believe that 20 new banks have recently been licensed and, within a few years, I think we will see real competition and diversity.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that he is not complacent, and he has good cause not to be. Net business lending was down in eight of the past 12 months, and businesses will hear that in the past year, lending is down by £11.6 billion on the year before. How does he think those businesses will respond to the news that in the past year, Barclays and Lloyds made 508 people millionaires due to the bonuses they paid, at the same time as many small businesses are struggling to get access to finance? Is there a discrepancy between the Government’s performance on small business lending and the bonuses that continue to be paid by those banks?

[Vince Cable]

There are often bonus levels that are extreme, but it is important to recall that at the peak of the financial crisis when the Labour party was in charge, there was a bonus pool of well over £12 billion. That has now shrunk to a tiny fraction of that, and at least one bank to which the hon. Gentleman referred—Lloyds—is making a significant improvement in the supply of small business lending.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to reduce the amount of EU regulation which affects businesses.

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

The Government continue to press the European Union to reduce burdens on business. We are focused on delivering the business taskforce’s report, their 30 specific recommendations for reforming EU law, and the “compete” principles that should apply to all new EU legislation. We have already achieved good progress on seven of the 30 recommendations, and we are seeing growing recognition of the “compete” principles among major European business organisations and in the European Parliament.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Businesses in my constituency complain not only about EU regulations, but about the fact that other countries do not play by the same regulations, and that when our civil servants implement regulations, they gold-plate them. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to remove that gold-plating and ensure that we do the minimum possible to abide by the rules?

[Michael Fallon]

I think there was too much gold-plating in the past, and we have reviewed all 132 directives implemented in the past two and a half years since we tightened the rules on transposition. Of those 132, there is only one example of a directive being gold-plated. That is the consumer rights directive where we took the decision to better protect consumer interests in the use of premium lines.

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

Do we have to use this language from The Sun about gold-plating? There is good regulation and bad regulation, and we should be in favour of the good and oppose the bad. As the Minister’s Department will know, this morning there is a Financial Conduct Authority report on crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is one way that small businesses can get finance, and they have been let down by the big banks in this country. This regulation comes from this Government. Is EU regulation able to help us where the Government cannot?

[Michael Fallon]

The business bank is working precisely on supporting crowdfunding with schemes of that kind. I agree that there is good regulation to protect consumers and health and safety, but there is also far too much unnecessary legislation that has been imposed on us by the European Union. The previous Government did absolutely nothing about it, but we are doing something.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

4. How many firms have been prosecuted for non-payment of the national minimum wage since May 2010.

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

Since 2010-11, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has identified £11.3 million in arrears of wages for 66,000 workers through civil powers, which are sufficient in the majority of cases. However, for the minority that are persistently non-compliant, criminal investigation is appropriate. Two employers have been prosecuted since 2010, with nine prosecutions in total since 2007.

[Karl Turner]

Does the Secretary of State agree that paying Portuguese seafarers working on P&O Ferries in and out of Hull £3.96 an hour risks the employment of British seafarers? Will he make sure that the national minimum wage enforcement team investigates the maritime sector?

[Vince Cable]

The maritime sector is subject to the national minimum wage if it is operating within the UK jurisdiction. I will happily take up the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions and, indeed, I was aware of accusations of abuse in this sector.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

We know that the Government do not want to admit that the country is engulfed by a cost of living crisis, but that denial is made worse when the Chancellor is exposed as giving a hollow and empty promise to raise the national minimum wage to £7 an hour. Indeed, only a few days after he made that promise, the Conservative party issued a memo, under the heading “Common Sense Guide”, advising on how to avoid paying the national minimum wage. Rather than false promises for the lowest paid in our country, would it not be helpful to utilise the Secretary of State’s naming and shaming policy to expose the national minimum wage deniers in his Government and back Labour’s plans for a living wage?

[Vince Cable]

I thought that the Labour party was still committed to supporting the national minimum wage. This is an interesting new evolution of policy, which seems to have been made on the stump. The naming and shaming policy has now come into effect and the first five companies were named at the end of last week.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

5. What recent representations he has received from small businesses on their consumer rights.

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

The Government have previously considered the case for small businesses to have rights when buying goods and services that are more aligned with consumers, and consulted on this question in 2008 and 2012. We have continued to engage with representatives of small business on this matter. The Federation of Small Businesses will shortly present a report in this area and I have committed to responding and will read it with interest.

[Alex Cunningham]

I had a visit from the North East Federation of Small Businesses on Friday and was told that it has seen longer and longer delays in getting larger organisations to pay for goods and services, with one—Procter & Gamble—now having payment terms of 180 days. It says the prompt payment code has no teeth and companies just extend their terms to comply. Is it not time for the Government to intervene to put an end to these disgraceful delays and give small organisations a better chance of survival?

[Jenny Willott]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and the Government take concerns from business about unfair payment terms very seriously. For example, as he says, receiving payments promptly can be critical to the survival of a small business. That is why the Department launched a discussion paper called “Building a responsible payment culture” at the beginning of December. It sought views on what unfair payment terms look like and whether legislative or non-legislative measures should be used to tackle them. The consultation closed at the end of January and we are currently analysing the responses. We will announce shortly what we want to do to tackle the issue.

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

6. In how many of the last 24 months net lending to business by banks has risen.

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

The most recent data from the Bank of England show that net lending to small and medium-sized businesses was positive in March, June and November, and the bank’s most recent trends in lending and credit conditions reports show that confidence is beginning to return, helped by interventions such as the business bank. Gross lending continues to be higher year on year, but there is still much more to do.

[Mr Cunningham]

When will the Government stop blaming the previous Government and everybody else and get the major banks such as Lloyds and HSBC actually lending to small businesses? Small businesses in my constituency and up and down the country are suffering very badly.

[Matthew Hancock]

In order to understand the problem that we are having to address, it is important to analyse why it came about. We all know why it came about—because of the under-regulation by the Labour party. It is absolutely true that gross lending increased by £4 billion in October 2013—the highest amount since 2009—so we are moving in the right direction. But there is much more to do to clear up the mess left by the Labour party.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I report from Northamptonshire that businesses are not having to go to lending to invest, but generating their own cash? The latest survey from the Northamptonshire chamber of commerce shows that

“44% of manufacturers and 21% of service sector respondents reporting an improvement”

in their cash flow

“with 24% proposing to invest in plant and machinery and 44% in training.”

Businesses are not necessarily dependent on lending from banks.

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course some businesses are dependent on lending and it is very important to ensure that that problem is sorted out, but my hon. Friend rightly raises the fact that many businesses have an increasing amount of cash on their balance sheets. Encouraging them to get out and spend that cash and invest is an absolutely critical reason for increasing business confidence. I am delighted that business confidence is at record levels. Northamptonshire is one of the most supportive places for business and has recently won an award for exactly that.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the number of complaints and the level of consumer detriment relating to estate agents’ practices in England and Wales.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

16. What recent assessment he has made of the number of complaints and the level of consumer detriment relating to estate agents’ practices in England and Wales.

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

Citizens Advice received 2,831 calls on issues concerning estate agents from February 2013 to January 2014. The Office of Fair Trading investigated 114 complaints against estate agents from April 2013 to October 2013. Trading Standards continues to carry out enforcement activity against rogue estate agents. From 1 April, the Competition and Markets Authority will work with other consumer bodies to monitor the level of detriment relating to estate agents’ practices.

[Mr Hanson]

There is growing concern about the process of sale by tender, which has the potential to push up costs for both vendor and purchaser. Does the Minister share that concern?

[Jenny Willott]

This particular issue has not been raised with me, but I am happy to take it up with the enforcement authorities and the two redress schemes. I will ask the Office of Fair Trading and the CMA to consider the matter on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman.

[Susan Elan Jones]

There is no doubt that there are good estate agents out there as well as bad estate agents, but it is surely a very bad practice when both buyers and sellers are charged a fee for the same property. Will the Minister condemn the practice?

[Jenny Willott]

As the hon. Lady says, this is a potentially worrying and emerging trend that seems to be on the increase. I have already written to the redress schemes to ask them to examine the matter. From 1 April, Powys county council takes over responsibility for the overall enforcement of licensing of estate agents, and I will be writing to it to ask it to examine the practice.

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

The Minister mentions the Government’s intention for Powys county council, which serves a predominantly rural area, to take over the regulation of estate agents from April. Powys has had three different cabinets in as many months, and had to be threatened with intervention by the Welsh Government before it could agree a budget yesterday. Given that it cannot seem to get its own house in order, with practices such as double charging and mortgages by tender being put forward by estate agents, why does the Minister think the council is the right body to get house sales in order?

[Jenny Willott]

At the moment, both trading standards and the OFT possess enforcement powers relating to estate agents. From 1 April, we are simplifying the landscape by transferring the OFT’s powers to the lead authority, Powys county council. There is a precedent for having a lead local authority effectively to address functions across the nation—for example, illegal money lending teams for England and Wales do this. I have faith in the ability of our trading standards officers who are extremely effective, well trained and very responsive to the needs of members of the public, and I have every faith that Powys county council trading standards department will be able to exercise these functions perfectly adequately.

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

8. If he will make it his policy to better use procurement by his Department to increase apprenticeship opportunities.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

9. If he will make it his policy to better use procurement by his Department to increase apprenticeship opportunities.

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

We consider opportunities for the provision of apprenticeships on an individual basis. Last month, however, we announced a new college to train the next generation of world-class engineers working on the construction of High Speed 2. We hope that that will create up to 2,000 apprentices. Crossrail is the largest procurement project across government—indeed, it is the largest construction project in Europe—and has a target of 400 apprentices over the life cycle of the project as part of its procurement.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for his answer, and note his mention of procurement. In 2010, I introduced a Bill to increase the number of apprenticeships by means of public contract procurement. The proposal was adopted by the official Opposition, and was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in his Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill. Does the Minister agree that it would be an excellent way in which to mark national apprenticeship week for the Government to adopt the policy officially, and to ensure that it is rolled out across the board?

[Matthew Hancock]

As I have said, we include apprentices in procurement contracts. Of course procurement must put value for money at the top of the list to ensure that we spend taxpayers’ money wisely—which, these days, we do—but we must also ensure that, in national apprenticeship week, we celebrate the value that apprentices can bring, and the value that they can often add to projects.

[Mr McCann]

I do not thank the Minister for his answer, because he did not answer the question. When he is considering whether to boost apprenticeships through the use of procurement, what is a higher priority for him: cheaper contracts, or the supply of apprenticeship opportunities to our people?

[Matthew Hancock]

As I have said, we are including apprentices in procurement contracts through Crossrail and High Speed 2. We will also be establishing a nuclear college, so that it will be local people who, through apprenticeships, ensure that Britain maintains the skills that will enable us to build infrastructure such as the new civil nuclear power stations.

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

For every pound spent on an apprentice, £18 is invested in the economy. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the £16 million new facility at Leeds College of Building, which will deliver apprenticeships for 7,500 students and will make a huge difference to apprenticeships in the city?

[Matthew Hancock]

I have been to Leeds to see what is being done with apprenticeships. Building colleges for building is an important part of ensuring that we can build our buildings in the future, and using apprenticeships to do that is an important way of improving and retaining skills, but, crucially, it also gives thousands of young people a chance to obtain the skills that they need in order to hold a sustainable job and have a secure future.

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

The building of Hinkley C will create a huge amount of employment in and around not only Somerset but Devon. Apprenticeship schemes will certainly work very well when it comes to building a power station.

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to Bridgwater college, which has put an awful lot of effort into ensuring that we build up the courses that will provide us with new nuclear skills.

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

National apprenticeship week provides an extraordinary opportunity to celebrate the amazing work of our apprentices, but it is a matter of concern to all Members that there are now 5,000 fewer young people studying in apprenticeships than there were at the time of the last election. That is why news of huge staff cuts at the National Apprenticeship Service is so worrying. The excellent Nick Linford of FE Week says that they may amount to 20%, and I hear from front-line staff in Birmingham that the figure may be 50%. The Minister refused to answer a written question on the subject, and he dodged a question about it in the House yesterday. Will he now tell us how many staff at the National Apprenticeship Service—which is part of the Skills Funding Agency—will lose their jobs in the next year?

[Matthew Hancock]

The National Apprenticeship Service does a magnificent job in putting together events such as national apprenticeship week, and it is important to ensure that we run it as effectively as possible. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a record number of people have participated in apprenticeships in the last year, and that they are doing a fantastic job. It is true that we had to remove some low-quality apprenticeships that were only six months long. The Opposition claim that they want high-quality apprenticeships, but then complain when we remove low quality. I will not take any lessons from them.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

10. On what date he plans to visit Bassetlaw to inspect and meet local businesses.

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

I have provisionally booked a ministerial visit to Bassetlaw and to neighbouring areas in Nottinghamshire for early June.

[John Mann]

I will parlay with the devil to get jobs and investment into my constituency, and I can guarantee the Secretary of State my personal protection from my constituents and their anger with the coalition. Perhaps we shall be able to have, for the day, a healthier coalition promoting jobs and investment in Bassetlaw.

[Vince Cable]

I am not sure I shall need much protection because the firms in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are already beating their way to my door. I believe 14 companies have availed themselves of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, there have been five start-up loans and 17 other companies are using the growth accelerator, all in his patch.

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

11. What his policy is on the future level of 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 it costing jobs and ensure the benefits of the recovery are shared by everyone. We fully support an independent Low Pay Commission and are currently considering this year’s recommendation to increase the national minimum wage by 3% to £6.50. This would represent the first real increase since the financial crisis. In addition, we are considering the Low Pay Commission’s response to how we can restore the real value of the national minimum wage, which has not kept pace with inflation since 2008.

[Andrew Selous]

I am looking forward to many of my constituents seeing a pay rise shortly as the minimum wage rises, but what is the Secretary of State doing to address the worrying productivity gap so that future wage rises are based on increases in productivity and earned output?

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is right that if we are to sustain real increases in wages whether at the minimum level or above, there have to be productivity increases and many of the problems in the low-paid sectors like catering and care are to do with the fact that productivity levels are very low. I gather, for example, that in some of the lowest paid sectors the minimum wage is already 90% of the median. That reflects the low productivity in those industries.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

21. With families £1,600 a year worse off, has the Secretary of State got any plans to follow Labour’s lead and incentivise employers to pay the living wage?

[Vince Cable]

We have already made it clear that we would encourage companies to pay the living wage if they could afford it, but we need to be very clear that this is not a mandated system. Indeed, the Low Pay Commission has expressed considerable care in its recommendations to be sure that in promoting a higher level of wages at the bottom, which we want to see, we do not force large numbers of workers out of work.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to support businesses affected by recent floods.

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

We have funded a £10 million business support scheme which is available to businesses that have been flooded or significantly impacted by the floods. The grant can help businesses with clean-up costs, drying equipment, temporary accommodation and marketing. This is part of a wider package that includes 100% business rate relief for three months and new repair and renewal grants.

[Mark Garnier]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and for all the Government are doing to help businesses affected by the floods. In my constituency, 29 businesses, mainly in the town of Stourport-on-Severn, have been directly flooded and a number of others have been indirectly affected. So far, Wyre Forest has not been included in the first tranche of the direct support grant. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that those businesses that have been affected will be supported when the second tranche is announced next week?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. With the first round of funding—some £5 million—the aim was to get the money out and allocated to local authorities as quickly as possible. We are in touch with other local authorities, including Wyre Forest district council, and I hope the second round of funding will be allocated very shortly.

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

Can the Minister confirm that the business support money that is available is capped at £5,000? That might meet the needs of smaller businesses, but for medium-sized or larger businesses that is quite a small amount considering many of them lost very expensive equipment.

[Michael Fallon]

The cap is £2,500 for the business support scheme, although there are other schemes available and the hon. Lady will be aware that I wrote to her on 25 February pointing out that Hull has been allocated some £230,000, the fifth largest allocation anywhere in the country.

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

20. Following the floods that took out Dawlish railway line, last week I visited a number of my businesses at my Plymouth railway station, including taxi drivers, Spar and some newsagents, who have noticed a 40% drop in their footfall. What might the Government be able to do to help those people?

[Michael Fallon]

We have announced a £2 million tourism support package, from which Plymouth will benefit. Local workshops and drop-in clinics will deliver practical help on the ground for tourism businesses, alongside a focused marketing campaign to boost trade for Easter and the early summer. VisitBritain is providing a promotional push abroad to encourage visitors from overseas, and I can tell my hon. Friend that it is working in partnership with Brittany Ferries on a £10 million campaign to promote the south-west more generally.

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

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that small businesses will be excluded from the Flood Re insurance scheme, and that that will have an impact on their future reinsurance and excess premiums?

[Michael Fallon]

The Flood Re scheme is there to help some of the hardest-to-insure areas, but most business insurance is already priced to risk, unlike household insurance, in which cross-subsidies apply. However, I will certainly look again at the point my hon. Friend has raised.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the competitiveness of the retail grocery market.

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

Retail is a highly competitive sector, particularly in the grocery market, with multiple companies competing for market share on price, brand and quality. Retailers are quick to respond to changing consumer preferences. The Competition Commission’s 2008 assessment of the groceries sector found that it was generally working well and that consumers were receiving the benefits of competition, such as value, choice, innovation and convenience.

[Mr Harper]

I am happy to agree with the Minister on that, and I would like to draw to her attention the behaviour of the Co-operative supermarket in Cinderford in my constituency. It is using every trick in the book to behave in an anti-competitive manner to block a planning application that has been approved by my local council and that is popular with local people. Should not it just get on with competing on the basis of price and choice, rather than on the basis of the quality of its legal team?

[Jenny Willott]

I fully support competition in the retail sector, with its benefits for consumers. The competition regime in the UK is designed to ensure that competition works in the best interests of consumers; it is not intended to protect incumbent businesses from competition. The Government remain committed to a town centre first policy, but that does not mean that shops cannot be built outside town centres where appropriate. It is up to local authorities to ensure that their local plans identify the retail needs of their local communities, and that they provide a firm basis for any planning decisions.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to encourage UK students to study for postgraduate qualifications at UK universities.

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

The Government understand the importance of postgraduate study, which is why we are creating a new postgraduate support fund, worth £75 million over the next two years. This investment will allow universities to pilot innovative programmes to support access and participation.

[Hugh Bayley]

As the Minister knows, the UK will not remain competitive if we do not reverse the frightening trend of falling numbers of British students starting postgraduate qualifications, and I fear that the situation could get worse as the first cohort of students to have paid much higher undergraduate fees starts to feed through the system. How many additional postgraduate students will £75 million pay for? What will the Government do further to boost the number of British students doing postgraduate courses?

[Mr Willetts]

After 2016, graduates will be paying back less per month than under the current arrangements, so that factor should not deter postgraduate study. Our extra funding is paying for 20 programmes, in 20 universities, to explore different ways of encouraging more postgraduate study.

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

15. What recent estimate he has made of changes in the number of applications by (a) part-time and (b) mature students since changes in the level of student fees.

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

Data are not collected on applications for part-time study in higher education. However, the number of part-time students enrolling in higher education has fallen by 42% since its peak in 2008-09. The latest figures from UCAS show that the number of mature applicants to full-time undergraduate courses has risen over the last two application cycles by 5%.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the Minister for that answer, and for that rather startling statistic. Another startling statistic is that the number of part-time undergraduates fell by 19% in 2012-13. Does he now regret the trebling of tuition fees? Does he understand that it has undermined the number of part-time students and that it is leading to declining social mobility?

[Mr Willetts]

This is not to do with the introduction of the fees and loans. As I said in answer to the previous question, the burden of repayment on graduates has fallen. The hon. Gentleman describes a trend that began under the previous Government. We believe it is attributable significantly to their policy of not funding students who already have an equivalent-level qualification. That is why I have started the process of reversing that by extending entitlements to loans to more part-time students, and we aim to continue to reverse the damage done by Labour’s policy.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

17. What assessment he has made of the effects on businesses of banks’ lending practices.

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

Banks’ lending practices—good or bad—can have an impact on the willingness of small businesses to approach their bank. We are alert to any evidence of poor practice, and we take up concerns both with the banks and, where necessary, with the financial services regulators.

[Andrew George]

While bankers are still happily filling their boots with multi-million pound bungs, thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises across this land are being sucked dry by those same banks. Regulators are offering only woefully limp regulation at the moment, so is it not now time for Ministers to step in to protect SMEs from these mis-sold interest rate hedging products?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course, we have strengthened the regulation of the banking system enormously in the past three years. As yesterday’s figures from the Financial Conduct Authority show, 62% of businesses that might have been mis-sold interest rate swaps have now been told by the banks whether they are owed compensation under the scheme regulated by the FCA, and all businesses owed redress will have been made offers by the end of June.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

18. What support his Department is providing to apprenticeships.

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

We are well on our way to delivering the agenda of apprenticeship reform. This is national apprenticeship week and, as we know, across the country participation has increased by about 80% since the election. In Stevenage, participation in apprenticeships since the election has more than doubled.

[Stephen McPartland]

Apprenticeships are a great opportunity to reduce the gap between education and employment, and in Stevenage last year more than 800 young people took up the opportunity of an apprenticeship. Yesterday, I launched a jobs fair so that we can push towards 1,000 young people taking up the apprenticeship opportunity this year. Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the local partners—the jobcentres, employers, schools and colleges—on the work they are doing?

[Matthew Hancock]

I add to those in that list, all of which I congratulate, my hon. Friend, who has obviously played an important role in bringing people together. Apprenticeships, especially high-quality ones, can happen only as a partnership between training providers and employers, and of course the Government, with some of their funding, to give young people the opportunities they need.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On Monday, I had the pleasure of hosting a group of apprentices from MBDA here in Parliament. The group included Anna Schlautmann, the manufacturer apprentice of the year, and Jade Aspinall, Semta’s apprentice of the year. MBDA has a fantastic apprenticeship programme, so what is the Department doing to promote best practice in apprenticeships?

[Matthew Hancock]

These apprentices clearly had an interesting time, because they met not only the hon. Lady, but the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon)—and indeed, I also met them. They were extremely impressive, and showing the highlights of the best apprentices is something we should all celebrate across this House.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Figures released this week show that every time a local company hires an apprentice their bottom line gets an average boost of £2,100. In Eastleigh, that means that new apprenticeships alone provided a local boost of more than £2 million in 2012-13. Will the Minister join me in praising local businesses in Eastleigh, such as GE Aviation and Arlington Rail, which have a great track record in delivering high-quality apprenticeships? Will he also join me in praising the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who is leading the charge on this?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course I will join my hon. Friend. I also join him in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Member for Burnley and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who are apprenticeship ambassadors and do enormous work, in this House and beyond, to promote apprenticeships.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

19. If his Department will make an assessment of the main causes of insecurity in the workplace.

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

The 2011 workplace employment relations study measured insecurity. It showed that job insecurity is related to three factors: whether a workplace had been subject to recent redundancies; if managers felt that the recent recession affected the business; and the number of changes to working terms and conditions experienced by employees.

[Ann McKechin]

The Minister will be aware that research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development shows that approximately 1 million people in this country are currently employed on zero-hours contracts. We know that many of these are exploitative, so will the Minister confirm whether the Government will use the opportunity of the forthcoming Queen’s Speech to legislate to end the misery that is suffered by so many in our communities?

[Jenny Willott]

The hon. Lady will know that the Government looked at zero-hours contracts last summer, and are currently consulting on related issues such as exclusivity clauses and so on, which are just some of the problems that people have highlighted. Following on from that consultation, we will look at what measures need to be taken to ensure that such contracts are used positively and not to cause problems for those who are being exploited by them.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

22. What steps he is taking to raise awareness of export support services among small and medium-sized businesses.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Richard Graham]

On my last trade envoy mission to Indonesia, I arranged for a film to be made of about a dozen SMEs that were with me before, during and after the mission in order to show it at later seminars across the country to convince small businesses that they can export successfully to far-away growth markets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such low-cost films made by different trade envoys in different markets could be an attractive tool to encourage SMEs to export?

[Mr Speaker]

I have just learned something new. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a trade envoy, but I do now and I am pleased to learn it.

[Michael Fallon]

I agree that films can be a useful way of helping businesses to understand the benefits of exporting. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that UKTI is producing a series of “Exporting is GREAT” videos based on companies that feature in its campaign. There are currently four videos for Cundall, Angloco, Serious Games and for Lye Cross Farm, which exports cheese to France.

[Mr Speaker]

It is always useful to have a bit of additional information.

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

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

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

My Department plays a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy through business to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.

[Mr Cunningham]

Will the Secretary of State say what the latest position is regarding Hibu, as he met a small delegation of MPs some months ago to discuss the situation? He will know that many of the shareholders have lost a lot of money, especially those in Coventry.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right that many people have lost significant amounts of money, and they are clearly keen to see action. The administrator has a statutory duty to report on the behaviour of Hibu’s directors, and that report is due before the end of May. At that point, the Secretary of State and the Insolvency Service will look at whether action needs to be taken to disqualify the directors.

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

T2. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lancaster chamber of commerce and Lancaster and Morecambe college, ably supported by the Lancaster Guardian, on putting on courses for local businesses to demonstrate the benefits of apprenticeships? Does he accept that such local initiatives will build on this Government’s success in putting real apprenticeships back on the career map?

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

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Lancaster Guardian, like many local newspapers across the country, plays an important role in changing the culture, supporting apprenticeships and ensuring that young people know the opportunities that are available to them.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

In the last annual report and accounts of his Department, the Secretary of State said that the Department remained

“on track to deliver against our spending review settlement.”

However, the head of the National Audit Office said in the same report that there are significant uncertainties relating to billions of pounds’ worth of the Department’s assets, which will affect its financial position. Can the Secretary of State explain the discrepancy?

[Vince Cable]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the significant assets that were left with the dissolution of the regional development agencies. In fact, the job of managing that complex process has been extraordinarily successful.

[Mr Umunna]

No, I refer to the student loans worth billions of pounds. Subsequent to the publication of those accounts, the NAO published a report that revealed that because Ministers have dramatically overestimated the number of graduates who will be able to repay the loans to pay for the Secretary of State’s higher tuition fees, he has, in effect, blown a hole in the Department’s budget. In fact, the Library estimates that from 2015-16 an extra £600 million a year will have to be found. Will the Secretary of State now explain how he will fix the problem without putting under threat the country’s scientists, students, universities and colleges?

[Vince Cable]

This is an absurd misunderstanding of what is called the resource accounting and budgeting—RAB—charge system, which depends on long-term predictions of earnings growth. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if the recovery of the economy continues as it is, the RAB charge estimates will be substantially revised down and the imaginary black hole will very soon disappear.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T4. What steps is the Department taking to support small and medium-sized businesses in Lancashire that are keen to export their goods and services?

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

We are committed to helping Lancashire companies to start exporting or to expand in new markets. Between April and December 2013, UKTI helped nearly 600 businesses across Lancashire and I was pleased to see my hon. Friend supporting those efforts by partnering with UKTI in delivering a successful export event for local businesses at the BAE site in his constituency last week.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

T3. I know that many of us were waiting with a great deal of interest for the Financial Conduct Authority’s new rules on payday lending, but does the Minister share my disappointment that it did not come up with a much tougher action plan on advertising?

[Matthew Hancock]

We were clear in our consultation on payday lending that we had put all the options for change on the table. We have taken the consultation seriously and that has included my meeting many of the stakeholders. We will do what it takes, but we will do what works—and what works for businesses large and small, focusing especially on the needs of small businesses—but we will not make changes just to satisfy calls and headlines. We will make sure that the system works as properly as possible.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T5. Pendle businesses were delighted when the Government published the draft assisted area status map back in December, proposing to include part of Pendle for the first time. The current map, drawn up under the previous Government in 2007, did not include a single part of Pendle, yet the new map will include about 50% of the borough. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress in bringing the new map into force?

[Michael Fallon]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased with the draft map. The Government are considering responses made in stage two of the assisted areas consultation to the draft map and the final map for 2014 to 2020 is due to come into effect on 1 July this year.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

T7. A major hotel chain in my constituency employs a conveyor belt of young people. They are all on zero-hours contracts, tips are pooled and loosely accounted for and if workers have the audacity to question anything they are rewarded —punished—with fewer shifts. When will the Secretary of State stop consulting and start doing something about exploitation through zero-hours contracts?

[Jenny Willott]

As I said in answer to a previous question, we are in the process of consulting. It is important that we get this right so that we do not penalise employees by getting the rules wrong. Many employees benefit from zero-hours contracts and we need to ensure that we take the right action rather than hasty action. We will respond to the consultation and make proposals to get rid of the exploitative factor in zero-hours contracts.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

T6. Agriculture matters in my constituency yet the average age of my farmers is about 60, so we have a desperate need to encourage young people to go into farming. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills and Enterprise made a statement to the House yesterday about the reforms to the apprenticeship scheme, but will he outline how his reforms will encourage young people to use apprenticeships to go into farming?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course, apprenticeships increasingly cover the whole economy, including farming and agriculture. The number of apprenticeships in agriculture has increased by a quarter and I am pleased to say that we are working with farmers in our trailblazer reforms of apprenticeships to get them and the agriculture sector to write the rules on what training is needed to ensure that apprenticeships work better for them in future.

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

Bogus self-employment continues to spread through the construction industry, in part because the number of HMRC employer compliance inspections has halved in four years. Does the Secretary of State regret that?

[Vince Cable]

Of course we want to see maximum compliance. We realise that there are abuses in the construction industry and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committing to stepping up enforcement action.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I am very pleased with the Government’s rapid response in providing support for businesses that were directly affected by the floods, but evidence is emerging in Worcester of substantial indirect effects from transport disruptions, particularly to small businesses. I understand that Worcester received around £57,000 of funding in the first tranche of the floods fund. Can the Minister confirm that as more evidence emerges, there may be more money to support local SMEs?

[Michael Fallon]

I can confirm that a second tranche of funding will be made available under the business support scheme, and my Department is talking to all local authorities where businesses have been affected. Where they have been significantly affected, of course we want to help.

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

My constituent, Mr Rundell, paid for an additional guarantee scheme from a high street retailer for an electrical item on the basis that he would get a replacement. It later turned out that that was not the case. What assessment has the consumer affairs Minister made of the way in which these policies are sold to constituents and to people across the country, because very often such a policy turns out not to be what they have been promised?

[Jenny Willott]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Consumer Rights Bill is in Committee and a number of Members here today are on that Committee. One of the issues we are looking at is warranties and guarantees and ensuring that consumers are aware of their statutory rights. There is protection for consumers. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent contact the Citizens Advice helpline, which will be able to point him in the right direction to ensure that if he has been mis-sold something, he can get the remedies due to him under the law.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Burnley last week to open a new industrial estate and visit a number of rapidly expanding companies that are embracing the Government’s economic policy. Does he agree that if the success being achieved in Burnley was replicated across the country, our economic position would be growing much better?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, I had a very rewarding visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency and I think there were broader lessons. Much of the gloom about the economy that is being spread by the Opposition is not reflected in many manufacturing towns such as Burnley, which has an unemployment rate well below the national average and highly successful manufacturing companies, particularly in aerospace and the car supply chain. Many other towns and cities across the UK are now sharing that experience.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware that business growth in the UK is dependent not just on exports but on investors. Recently I went on a visit to India and I discussed with businesses, including a Confederation of Indian Industry round table here, issues concerning UKTI. How successful does he believe UKTI is at creating investment opportunities for medium-sized businesses from abroad, particularly in our regions, so that we can see growth and investment partnerships?

[Vince Cable]

UKTI is now regarded as an excellent service for business. It has a dedicated unit devoted to high-value opportunities and big inward investment in the UK. I visited India recently and met a substantial number of Indian companies, both in the service sector, such as call centres, and in manufacturing, such as aerospace, that are targeting the UK to re-shore production here from India.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Tomorrow in Kettering, with local employers, Tresham institute will launch Experience Kettering, a workplace experience scheme for hard-to-place young people aged 18 to 24. Would the Skills Minister congratulate Tresham institute on this initiative and send some words of encouragement?

[Matthew Hancock]

I would be delighted to congratulate Tresham institute on what it is doing to help young people into work. Work experience is a vital part of getting a job and I hope it is also working on the new traineeship programme, which is designed to help people into an apprenticeship or a sustainable job.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

What impact and what offence does the Secretary of State believe have been caused to Jewish and Muslim businesses by the statement from the chief veterinary officer today, threatening to ban the practice of shechita and halal?

[Vince Cable]

I confess that I have not yet absorbed the significance of that statement. We will certainly consider it.

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

The House is awaiting the response to the BIS consultation on pub companies, but now that the London Economics research has been exposed as fundamentally flawed and does not follow the brief given to it by BIS, and the firm has charged £26,000 for fieldwork that did not take place, will my right hon. Friend ignore this bunkum and listen to the Federation of Small Businesses’ research, which shows that the market rent-only option would benefit the UK economy by £78 million?

[Jenny Willott]

As my hon. Friend knows, responses to last year’s Government consultation numbered in the thousands. We are looking at all the evidence that was put before us, including the research he mentioned. We also received evidence from thousands of individual tenants who contacted us to tell us about their circumstances and the impact the proposed measures could have on their business. We are looking at all of that and will bring forward proposals shortly.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Apprentices in Bolton West have told me that teachers tried to dissuade them from undertaking apprenticeships, particularly if they were high-flying students. What is the Department doing to educate teachers and ensure that proper careers guidance is in place?

[Matthew Hancock]

That is properly a matter for the Department for Education but, as I am also a Minister there I will take this opportunity to explain that we are introducing stronger statutory guidance. There was no guidance for schools before, so we have introduced a new legal requirement on them to secure independent and impartial advice, and we are introducing stronger statutory guidance to ensure that they do so, alongside the new National Careers Service, which this Government introduced.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

I will meet representatives of Jaguar Land Rover tomorrow to discuss their vision for their Gaydon headquarters. As it is international women’s day on 8 March, I will also be discussing the work they do to encourage women and girls to take up science, technology, engineering and maths. The Secretary of State is passionate about getting more women on boards and, importantly, into all sort of industries, so will he join me in celebrating international women’s day and reminding businesses that they need to do their bit to encourage more women into the sciences?

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To encourage more women into science, we have specifically said that when universities bid for the new capital funding we are allocating to them, they will be required to show what they are doing to attract women into those essential subjects.

Business of the House

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

10:31

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 10 March—Remaining stages of the Care Bill [Lords] (day 1).

Tuesday 11 March—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Care Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 12 March—Remaining stages of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by, if necessary, considerations of Lords amendments.

Thursday 13 March—Statement on the publication of the sixth report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on local government procurement, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the badger cull. The Select Committee statement and the subject for debate were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 14 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 17 March will include:

Monday 17 March—Consideration of Lords amendments.

Tuesday 18 March—Consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 19 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Thursday 20 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 21 March—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 March will be:

Thursday 13 March—A general debate on Commonwealth day.

The House will also be aware that this morning I made a written statement announcing that Her Majesty the Queen will open a new Session of this Parliament on Tuesday 3 June 2014.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.

The events unfolding in Ukraine are of grave concern. There is agreement across the House that Russia’s actions are without justification and flout international law. European leaders are meeting today in Brussels. In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a statement on the outcome of that meeting in the House on Monday? Will he also undertake to ensure that the House is kept adequately informed about this rapidly developing situation without having to depend on inadvertent Downing street leaks?

This Saturday is international women’s day. It is important that we reflect on the ongoing fight for women’s equality in this country and around the world. A shocking report published this week shows that one third of women in the European Union have suffered physical or sexual violence, but under this Government the number of domestic violence cases passed to the Crown Prosecution Service has fallen by 13%. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on how to end the scourge of violence against women, and ensure that the perpetrators know that they will be brought to justice?

If the Prime Minister is good at one thing, it is completely failing to provide answers during Prime Minister’s questions. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) asked the Government exactly how they are planning to achieve their aim of bringing back fox hunting for their Bullingdon buddies. The Prime Minister guaranteed the House a vote, so will the Leader of the House now confirm that, if the Government intend to use a statutory instrument to drive a coach and horses through the Hunting Act 2004, the statutory instrument will be taken on the Floor of the House and not upstairs?

Next Thursday there will be a Back-Bench business debate on the badger cull, which will call for the cull to be stopped. The Government have already ignored one vote to stop the cull, but the emerging evidence is that the trials have been a failure and may even have made the situation worse. Will the Leader of the House tell us that, if there is another vote to stop the cull, the Government will this time abide by the will of the House?

On Monday and Tuesday the House will debate the Care Bill. There is a lot in the Bill on which both sides of the House can agree, but unfortunately the Government are using it as a back-door route to give themselves the power to close any hospital they want. Given that the Leader of the House was the first to use trust special administrators in south London, and his successor was embarrassed in the High Court for trying to use them to close services at Lewisham hospital, will he now concede that any reconfiguration of hospital services should be clinically led and not done for purely financial reasons?

I congratulate the Leader of the House on finally being able to give us the date of the last-gasp Queen’s Speech of this clapped-out, dysfunctional Government. A Queen’s Speech in June and an extended recess show that this is a zombie Government who have long since run out of steam. They may think they have cobbled together an agreement, but it has lasted less than a day. Today, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and a Home Office Minister will make totally contradictory speeches on immigration.

The Chancellor ambushed the Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet on vetoing a European Union referendum, and with the Budget only two weeks away, he is too busy fighting with the Mayor of London about who will be the next Tory leader to think about his day job. As yesterday was Ash Wednesday, may I suggest that, hard as it may be, they may want to give up squabbling, conniving and plotting for Lent?

This week the Deputy Prime Minister has been so desperate to grab the limelight that without any apparent sense of irony he has been busy accusing politicians of having brass necks. He is now so worried about the Liberal Democrats being completely wiped out in the European elections that he has agreed to a featherweight boxing match with Nigel Farage on television. We have a Deputy Prime Minister so desperate for attention that I am surprised he has not photoshopped himself into that selfie at the Oscars.

[Mr Lansley]

I entirely agree that the events in Ukraine, as we discussed briefly last week, continue to be deeply disturbing. It is important, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, that we continue to set out clearly that there will be costs and consequences to the Russian Government if they continue, as they are doing, to breach international law and to intrude on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Today’s summit in Brussels gives us an opportunity, which the Prime Minister is using, to set out clearly the nature of those costs and consequences. We are looking for de-escalation, and it must be made clear to the Russian Government if that if they do not take action to de-escalate and to move back from their position, robust action will follow.

The hon. Lady asked about future business. Of course, I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to update the House following today’s discussions in Brussels and on such events that may occur over the next few days. As she knows, following the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Tuesday, we will keep the House fully informed. I will continue to discuss with my colleagues how we can ensure that the views of the House can be fully expressed. I think that will be helpful and I hope that it will further reinforce internationally the outrage that we feel about events in Ukraine.

I am delighted that the House will have so many opportunities to mark international women’s day, including through the Backbench Business Committee’s scheduling of a debate in this Chamber this afternoon, and this afternoon’s debate on women and the economy in Westminster Hall. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and others have secured a very important debate on Monday on the petition relating to female genital mutilation. There is a wide range of actions on this.

In the particular instance the hon. Lady mentioned, I share her concern about the survey that was published this week. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has published a ministerial statement today setting out that there will be an update of the violence against women and girls action plan, which will be published on Saturday. That will provide an opportunity to highlight the progress that we have made in tackling violence against women and girls. Last year, we extended the definition of domestic violence to include controlling, coercive behaviour; introduced two new stalking offences; and in December launched the This is Abuse campaign to highlight that it is not just physical violence that makes a relationship abusive. We have also announced the roll-out of Clare’s law and of domestic violence protection orders, and ring-fenced nearly £40 million of funding for specialist local support services and national helplines to support people in abusive situations.

The hon. Lady asked about the statutory instrument relating to the number of dogs used to flush out foxes for shooting. I am perfectly happy to discuss this through the usual channels. As she will know, it is always our practice to ensure that, where it is requested and sought by the House, there is an opportunity for proper debate on and scrutiny of statutory instruments, so we will of course look at that. I have to say, however, that I do not regard this, in any sense, as a debate about undermining the Act that the House passed. It is quite separate from the question of what should be the position in relation to the Hunting Act more generally, whereby the coalition agreement said that under the coalition programme we would look for a debate in the House, and we have not had an opportunity to do that yet.

The proper place for Ministers to set out the position on the badger cull is in the debate. The Backbench Business Committee has scheduled that debate for next Thursday, and I am very happy to let it take place. As the shadow Leader of the House knows, Ministers take account of Back-Bench motions, and we have done so in the past in relation to the badger cull. She may recall that we brought the issue back before the House before the badger cull pilots were undertaken, and there was a further vote that endorsed the position taken by the Government.

When we debate the Care Bill next week we will look at clause 119 and further amendments relating to trust special administrators. As far as I am aware, it has always been the case that whatever the trust special administrator brought forward, it was necessary, as was the case in relation to Lewisham, that it should meet the need to put services not only on a financially sustainable basis but on a clinically improving basis; the two have to be recognised as being linked. In south-east London, it was not possible to sustain the quality of services in the situation in which South London Healthcare NHS Trust found itself, and that is why the trust special administrator was appointed. The powers that the Secretary of State has and the powers that are sought should enable the clinical services for patients to be improved, and that is how they will be used.

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s welcome of the announcement of the date of the state opening of Parliament. Last year I published the date on 7 March, so I managed to make it a day earlier this year; we are trying hard to give the House maximum notice. Her point about the lack of business is misplaced. I have announced for next week four days’ business, three of which consist of substantial progress on Government Bills. I reiterate to her again that I do not regard, and the House should not regard, days allocated to Opposition debates and to Backbench Business Committee debates as anything other than a substantial use of the House’s time. Debating Government legislation is not our only purpose in being here. In recent years, and during this Parliament, the House has established a very positive track record of debating the issues that matter to the people of this country alongside making progress on Government legislation.

There is no merit in filling the House with legislation for its own sake. The previous Labour Government put 53 Bills before the House in one Session. [Interruption.] I will stop in a moment. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) will have his chance—he always does. In the penultimate Session of the previous Parliament, the previous Government introduced 27 Government Bills, while in this Session of this Parliament, this Government have introduced 24 Government Bills, so I completely refute the proposition that we are not dealing with business—and ours are rather better Bills, if I may say so.

The hon. Lady asked about the Deputy Prime Minister’s debate with Nigel Farage. I am really pleased he is doing it, because I think it will be very welcome if the Deputy Prime Minister takes the opportunity to set out to the people of this country the sheer lack of effort, energy and commitment of UKIP MEPs in the European Parliament. Happily, in my region, David Campbell Bannerman left UKIP, joined the Conservative party and is more responsible in what he does and puts in much more effort, but others have lamentably failed to represent the people who voted to send them to the European Parliament in the last election and who I hope will not make the same mistake again.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, dozens of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. However, I remind the House that there are two further ministerial statements to follow, first from the Home Secretary and then from the Secretary of State for Defence. Thereafter, there will be a statement by the Chair of the Defence Committee and two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Therefore, there is a premium on time and, exceptionally—I emphasise the word “exceptionally”—it may not be possible today to get everybody in, which, as the House knows, is my usual practice. There is an imperative, therefore, on Back and Front-Benchers alike to be brief.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

In the light of one of the statements you have mentioned, Mr Speaker, and the publication in a few minutes of the Privileges Committee report, will the Leader of the House consider a debate on a positive aspect of the relationship between UK police and MPs? I am, of course, referring to the little-known—it should be publicised—police service parliamentary scheme, which has successfully brought police and MPs together. It started in 1999 and operates under the guidance of Sir Neil Thorne. An early, short debate would be timely, because the new scheme for this year has just commenced.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very good point. Just as Members have very much appreciated participating in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, they have equally benefited from participating in the police service parliamentary scheme. A meeting was held last week to set out what the scheme has achieved and to look forward. I hope Members will take advantage of it. Many of us benefit from the opportunity to spend time with the police service in our constituencies, but the scheme offers the opportunity to understand more systematically the character of policing, not just in our own constituencies, but elsewhere too. In the context of all the debates we are having about policing in this country, it would be wonderful if more Members demonstrated to the police service their commitment to understand the nature and challenges of policing today.

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

Last month, Liverpool city council won a High Court action, which ruled that cuts by the Government to European funding for Liverpool were unlawful. Last night, Liverpool city council had to agree £156 million-worth of cuts, which will impact severely on the provision of mandatory services, including social care to the elderly and children, yet yesterday the Prime Minister said that he does not believe the people of Liverpool are being short-changed. Can we please have an urgent debate on the Government’s blind spot when it comes to Liverpool?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government have no blind spot in relation to Liverpool. On the contrary, many of the things we are doing are helping Liverpool. Speaking personally, when I was Secretary of State for Health, two of the most important future building projects to which I gave my personal support were the rebuilding of Liverpool Broadgreen and Alder Hey hospitals. That does not ignore Liverpool; it supports Liverpool in the continuation of one of its most important services. I will not reiterate the points the Prime Minister made yesterday. He set out very clearly the figures for the level of support received per household in Liverpool relative to other places.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Between 1997 and 2011, the number of prescriptions for methylphenidate hydrochloride—also known as Ritalin—rose from 92,079 to 929,839, which is a 1,000% increase. As the drug is commonly used to treat children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, may we have an urgent debate about the effects on society of drugging a generation of children?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that there have been such debates, if not in the most recent past. If my hon. Friend and other Members feel strongly about these issues, they might together choose to ask the Backbench Business Committee to find time to explore them—if not in the Chamber, then in Westminster Hall.

As my hon. Friend knows, a range of factors affects the number of prescriptions. During as long a period as 1997 to 2010, much of course happened in relation to awareness about such conditions and the overall level of prescribing and treatment for ADHD generally. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance in 2006 and the clinical guidelines in 2008 have had an impact on prescribing by clinicians. I say all that merely to illustrate that there is a range of issues, but he is right to say that it is sometimes useful for this House to take the time to look at them.

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

Given the fact that Barclays and Lloyds bank have now created more millionaires than the national lottery, as reported in the Daily Mirror, may we have a debate in the House about why this Government are allowing the banks to continue to rip off customers and Britain?

[Mr Lansley]

It is not this Government; we are doing no such thing. This Government have seen the level of bankers’ bonuses substantially reduced compared with the rate under the previous Government. It is astonishing. I will not go on about this, but when Labour Members were in government they mismanaged regulation of the financial services sector to such a point that we had bust banks and immense bail-outs, with bonuses wildly out of control, but they have the brass neck to stand up and complain about the reduced level of bankers’ bonuses being implemented under this Government. Frankly, we are making very clear that where we have shareholdings, bonuses have to be within a very controlled framework, and they are coming down relative to last year.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We are very lucky to have had some excellent Leaders of the House. I wonder whether the current Leader of the House might make a full oral statement next week on votes in this House. As a Member of the House, I have always thought that when this House votes, the Government are bound by that vote, but that does not necessarily seem to happen when Back-Bench motions are debated. Will he make a statement on that next week?

[Mr Lansley]

I can tell my hon. Friend that it has never been the case that a motion in this House binds the Government, except in so far as a vote is taken on legislation. With the greatest respect to him, whatever he may believe to be the case, a motion in this House has never bound the Government, except in such circumstances.

To repeat what I said to the shadow Leader of the House, time and again, even if the Government have not agreed with what was expressed in a motion passed after a Backbench Business Committee debate, we have always taken the motion seriously and responded to it. For example, I recall that hon. Members felt strongly about the matter relating to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. We did not agree with them, but a lot of care was taken to explain why we did not agree and to respond to the House on that subject. We will continue to act in that way.

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

I am very pleased that we will have a debate next week about the removal of railway rolling stock from the north to improve services in the south, but may we have a wider debate on exactly what the coalition Government have got against the north, and to look at the cuts to major northern cities and northern arts funding, and the delay in giving any assistance to areas of the north that flooded in December?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady asks that question when it is this Government who are bringing forward HS2, which will make the biggest difference since the Victorian era in terms of providing capacity and creating high-quality links between northern cities, to the rest of the rail network and beyond London. The Network Rail programme is the largest programme of rail investment since the Victorian era and many of the areas that will benefit are in the north of the country.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

A £3 million gamma knife radiotherapy machine is sitting unused at University College hospital in London because NHS England refuses to send cancer patients there. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to look into that as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, raise that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the hon. Lady requests. However, the commissioning of specialist services is a matter for NHS England under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, as she will recall. I completely understand what she says. I have seen the latest radiotherapy machines of the kind that she describes, which perform stereotactic radiotherapy. That is an interesting new treatment, but it is not appropriate in all circumstances.

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

Some good work has been done in this Parliament to hold down fuel duty, and I pay tribute to the Government for that. However, may we have a debate on the benefits of cutting fuel duty, such as boosting jobs, boosting the economy and helping hard-pressed families? Given that it would be self-financing, would it not be a good idea to think about it in the run-up to the Budget?

[Mr Lansley]

I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the right hon. Gentleman’s thoughts in the run-up to the Budget. We will, of course, debate those issues during the Budget debate. I share his sense of how important it is to people that fuel duty has been frozen for the entire Parliament, with the result that it will be 20p per litre lower than it would have been under the escalator put in place by the previous Government.

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

In the last Parliament, the number of health visitors dropped by 16%. In this Parliament, that trend has been reversed and the number has gone up by 1,000. There is an even faster increase in the number of midwives, which is up by 1,500, with a further 5,000 in training. Please may we have a debate about the improvements in maternity services? That would allow me to highlight the recent survey by the Care Quality Commission, which put Harrogate district hospital’s maternity services among the very best in the country.

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad to have the opportunity to congratulate the staff at Harrogate district hospital. I visited it some years ago and know that it is a fine district general hospital.

My hon. Friend makes a good general point. In about 1998 or 1999, the last Labour Government abandoned universal health visiting services. Because we are expanding the number of health visitors, by the end of this Parliament, we will again see a universal service for all parents coming home with a new baby, so there will be an opportunity for health visitors to work with every family. That will make a big difference by starting people off on the right track.

On midwives, for years after 2001, the previous Government ignored the increase of about 16% in the number of babies being born in this country. There was nothing like a commensurate increase in the number of midwives. Happily, since 2010, this Government have more than kept pace with the increase in the number of babies being born and have been making up that deficit. The increase in the number of midwives will help us further to improve maternity services.

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

Notwithstanding the previous comments of the Leader of the House on bankers’ bonuses, does he understand that millions of our constituents are at a loss to understand why British bankers are acting with impunity? Out of respect for you, Mr Speaker, I will temper my language. If these people continue to hold the country to ransom by threatening to leave the country, please let the reprobates go.

[Mr Lansley]

The Government have been very clear that in banks where we exercise a shareholding responsibility on behalf of the taxpayer, the level of bonuses will come down, bonuses should be paid in a form that can be recovered if people do not deliver and bonuses should often be deferred so that they can be linked directly to the long-term increase in the value of the business and the benefit to customers. Of course, there are many banks in which we do not have that shareholding responsibility. Those banks are subject to the law and to their shareholders, but that is as far as it goes.

What is important is that we have a more competitive banking system. That is what the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 and the measures that we are putting in place will achieve. There should be more challenger banks. People can and should make their own judgments about which banks are providing them with the right service.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

This afternoon a general debate on Welsh affairs will be held in this Chamber. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a hugely welcome development, so close as it is to St David’s day, and that it should be standard practice to hold a similar debate every year as part of the programme of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and in this instance credit goes to the Backbench Business Committee. It has demonstrated that it is responsive to Members in this House, and the Welsh affairs debate today is very positive. I hope, for example, that Members will look forward to the changes that the Government are planning to bring forward in the draft Wales Bill, and it might be an opportunity for those on the Opposition Front Bench to explain why they are opposed to further devolution of tax powers to the Welsh Government.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Last week we debated the impact of welfare reform on people with disabilities. Following that debate, I was contacted by a deaf constituent, who said that she wanted to follow the debate, but had been unable to do so because of the lack of signing or subtitles. May we have a debate on how we can improve accessibility to debates in this House for people who are deaf?

[Mr Lansley]

There may be an opportunity to discuss that at some point but I cannot identify when it will be. The hon. Lady makes a good point and if I may, I will discuss it with colleagues on the House of Commons Commission and elsewhere. It might form part of the agenda when we discuss matters such as parliamentary broadcasting with the BBC.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

May we have a statement about the criteria for environmental impact assessments to be carried out on wind turbine applications to ensure they are properly scrutinised? In my constituency, the local council has decided that such an assessment is not required on a forthcoming planning application in a sensitive area, but I fear, in my generosity, that it may have misinterpreted current guidance.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows that planning regulations set out the procedure for establishing whether an environmental impact assessment is required. Not every wind turbine development will require one, and the need for an EIA depends on a proposal’s size and location, and whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. I hope that when my hon. Friend looks at the planning regulations—as I know he will have done—he will be able to challenge if necessary whatever decision his local authority may have made. If I may, I will raise the issue with my hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government, and he may wish to have a further conversation with them about whatever interpretation the local authority has taken.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent Government statement on the great train robbery? In east Lancashire we have a brand new line with no trains on it, and last week we found out that the trans-Pennine trains are being moved to the Prime Minister’s constituency in the south. It seems to me there is a huge north-south shift, and that the north is being short-changed.

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport if they will respond directly to the hon. Gentleman on that issue, and he may wish to raise it at Transport questions. As far as I am aware—I stand to be corrected—such matters are governed not so much by Government policy but as a consequence of the way train operating companies and Network Rail behave.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Throughout the world, 57 million children are denied basic access to primary education, and excellent work has been undertaken by the Global Partnership for Education. May we have a debate on its work, and on the need for our Government to renew their commitment and replenish its funds in June?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that hon. Members feel strongly about this issue. The renewal of the millennium development goals and our determination to try to meet them is something that we can be proud of, but we need to ensure that we make progress, because we have not always made the progress that we want to make collectively. In this country, we can be proud of what we are doing, because—it is the first time it has been done by any major country—we are achieving the goal of providing 0.7% of gross national income in support of our international development aid. That enables us to speak with great authority internationally when it comes to meeting those objectives.

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

To mark Fairtrade fortnight, I had a meeting this morning with farmers from the Kuapa co-operative in Ghana who sell Fairtrade cocoa that goes into Divine chocolate. May we have a debate in Government time to review what more might be done to boost Fairtrade?

[Mr Lansley]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say and welcome the fact that he was able to meet the producers of Fairtrade chocolate. Hotel Chocolat is close to my constituency, and I would be glad to talk to them about their use of Fairtrade chocolate. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but the Backbench Business Committee can consider such issues if several Members feel strongly enough to bring them to it.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Government have recognised the importance of the Humber estuary for the renewable energy sector and in December the Transport Secretary approved a new port facility and energy park. However, two petitions have objected to the proposal, triggering a special parliamentary procedure. To make sure that we get the much needed jobs and growth, can the Leader of the House ensure that the process makes progress as quickly as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend once again shows his consistent pursuit of the interests of his constituents, and I completely understand that. He will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the project before all the statutory processes have been completed. Now that the petitioning period has ended, the matter is in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means and his counterpart in the Lords, and I am sure that they will give it consideration in a timely manner.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

This question genuinely requires just a yes or no answer. Can the Leader of the House confirm, as per the coalition agreement, that there will definitely be a debate and vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 during this Parliament?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may want a yes or no answer, but he will not get one. As must always be the case, the answer is subject to the progress of business and an agreement that we will bring such a measure forward at any time.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Earlier this week, Raquel De Andrade was imprisoned for a string of offences. She was apprehended at Harrow registry office trying to marry a Nigerian national who had overstayed his visa. Her big problem was that she was already legally married to three other men who had also overstayed their visas, and she was caught when officials became suspicious because she wore the same wedding dress each time. On a serious point, may we have a debate in Government time on what extra support can be given to efforts to combat the menace of bogus and sham marriages?

[Mr Lansley]

It is an abuse, and it is important that it is dealt with. My hon. Friend will recall that we are taking further powers in the Immigration Bill which is now before the House of Lords. I will raise the issue with my colleagues at the Home Office, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that we take it seriously. We are legislating on it, and he may have an opportunity to raise it further in Home Office questions or in consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration Bill in due course.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In June 2011, the House made clear its view that wild animals should not be used in circuses. In March 2012, the Government gave a commitment to the House and the country that they would bring forward legislation to deal with the issue. Can the Leader of the House say when that legislation will be brought forward?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I am not in a position to pre-empt announcements on the introduction of legislation, especially in the run- up to the Queen’s Speech.

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

This week, Dennis Eagle, a local business, was awarded an £8.5 million grant under the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative. This will create 52 jobs and safeguard another 32 jobs across the supply chain. May we have a debate on reshoring and supply chains, which are essential to re-establishing the UK as a centre for manufacturing?

[Mr Lansley]

What my hon. Friend says is very encouraging. I am pleased to have the opportunity to join him in congratulating Dennis Eagle on its advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative award. We are in favour of all Eagles, in their place—[Laughter.] He makes a good point. Some recent examples of reshoring have been very encouraging and demonstrate the tip of the iceberg. Those looking to increase manufacturing and supply manufacturing jobs no longer need to go abroad to be competitive, and that makes an enormous difference. Our backing for skills, apprenticeships, supply chains and innovation in new technologies is creating the right environment. On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced further supply chain funding, which is another practical example of well-targeted Government support helping UK firms to keep that progress going.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that crowdfunding allows many people, particularly women, to get into business start-ups for the first time? This is an area that has not been colonised by men, so, in the week of international women’s day, will he arrange an early debate? The Financial Conduct Authority released its recommendations on the regulation of crowdfunding this morning. Getting the regulation right will provide a wonderful opportunity to expand and become the international centre for crowdfunding.

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. I have not had an opportunity to look at what the FCA has had to say. He has, rightly, raised this issue before and I hope he finds today’s publication positive. We certainly want to see an improvement in the sources of funding available to small business. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills say how we want to achieve additional sources of funding for small businesses, through not only banks but a wider range of sources. Crowdfunding is for entrepreneurs. There are 400,000 more businesses than there were in 2010, many of which were set up by women. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise the issue further in this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on the contribution of women to the economy. If we can raise the rate of women entrepreneurship in this country to the level in the United States, it will dramatically increase our prospects for growth. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

It has been suggested to me that we have now had the debate. I think that is perhaps a tad unkind, but I am grateful for the advice.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

May we have a debate on credit rating companies, which can have a negative impact on some businesses because of false commentary? For example, a company called Experian claims that a company in my constituency, Fast Food Supplies (Anglia), is high risk and has a bad credit record. That is not true: the business has been operating successfully for 26 years and is expanding, moving into bigger premises and taking on more employees.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Credit rating is used widely by reputable companies, of which Experian is one. None the less, it needs to be done accurately. I think he and his constituents will find that Experian, as a highly reputable company, is as concerned as anybody to ensure that its credit ratings are accurate, but the House will appreciate that he is representing his constituents’ interests and will continue to do so.

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

May we have a debate on racism, particularly anti-Semitism? The repellent behaviour of Nicolas Anelka, and the pathetic and spineless response of the Football Association, remind us that racism is always there and always requires vigilance.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, with which I completely agree. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but there were debates to mark Holocaust memorial day earlier in the year, and I hope that the House will continue to have opportunities to convey its abhorrence of racism and our determination to tackle it wherever we see it raise its ugly head.

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

Russia has abused the sovereignty of Ukraine by marching into Crimea. Is there any chance of an urgent debate on the matter next week?

[Mr Lansley]

As I said to the shadow Leader of the House, it is evident from the number of questions asked by Members in response to the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Tuesday that, in due course, there will be good reason for many of those Members to have an opportunity to make a somewhat longer contribution in a debate. I cannot promise such a debate next week, because Government legislation will be debated on three days out of four and the Backbench Business Committee will be using its slot on Thursday, but my colleagues and I will think about when it might be best for one to take place.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the importance of public consultation in the setting of Government policy? This morning, with no consultation and on the basis of a very small and flimsy scientific report which is hotly disputed, the chief veterinary officer announced that the Government might be minded to ban the practices of shechita and halal. May we have a debate on precisely why that has not been subject to any public consultation on the Government’s part?

[Mr Lansley]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not recall the chief veterinary officer’s saying such a thing. I understood that it was said by the new head of the British Veterinary Association, who, of course, was not speaking on behalf of the Government.

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

May we have a debate on how we can encourage more families to adopt? Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming Yorkshire and Humber’s adoption day—which was staged by an organisation called Being Family—given that there are currently 116 children in the Leeds area who would like to be adopted?

[Mr Lansley]

Many of us, as constituency Members, are aware of the benefits of adoption—particularly for the youngest children—and the need for it to take place more quickly. I hope the hon. Gentleman will find that the Children and Families Bill will make a substantial difference. There have been more adoptions in the last year than there were in the year before, but I expect the Bill to help more children for whom it is appropriate to be adopted, and to be adopted sooner.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Pendle’s work force contains one of the highest proportions of manufacturing workers in the United Kingdom. I have been delighted to encounter an increasing number of female engineers, including Annette Weekes, the managing director of PDS (CNC) Engineering Ltd in Nelson, whom I met most recently last month. As we approach international women’s day, may we have a debate on what more the Government could do to boost the trend and get more women into engineering?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope that we shall be able to achieve more in that direction, because it is important for us to do so. I have been very impressed by the number of young women who are entering apprenticeship schemes, often in engineering, not least when I have visited organisations that are operating such schemes. The pathway through qualifications alongside work that apprenticeships encapsulate often makes them more interesting and attractive to women than the prospect of simply starting work in engineering and working their way up, and it seems to be more effective. I was involved in the promotion of women in science and engineering way back. It is a long-standing objective, and we still have a long way to go, but I hope that a great many other women will be able to follow the example of Annette Weekes.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to see a report on the BBC website headed “The march of the postcode battlers”. It refers to a number of campaigns by residents who are highlighting problems caused by their postcodes. Residents of Tyersal, Thornbury and Apperley Bridge in my constituency have long complained that, given that technically they live in Leeds, their Bradford postcode causes numerous problems when they are trying to use services such as health and education. May we have a debate to establish how widespread the problem is in the United Kingdom, and what solutions might be found?

[Mr Lansley]

The looks on Members’ faces and their nodding heads suggest this is quite a widespread problem, and I sympathise with my hon. Friend and his constituents, not least because I live in Cambridgeshire yet my postal address says I am in Hertfordshire and my postcode says I am in Stevenage, but I am in neither of those places—I say that with the greatest respect to Stevenage. We fought for years to get CB postcodes instead of SG postcodes and we have failed thus far. Royal Mail is very clear that there are major costs and consequences associated with trying to change the input codes and they would have to be changed all over the country, but I know that there are many Members who, with their constituents, feel this is something worth doing.

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

I have recently been contacted by a constituent who expressed extreme disappointment that, having used a search engine, he had paid a third-party website for a European health card, which, he later discovered, could be provided free by the Government. I am aware that a number of Members have similar cases relating to passport issues, visas and driving licences. May we therefore have a debate into what Government can do to protect consumers from unwittingly paying for services that the Government provide for free?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and he is not the first Member to raise it at business questions recently. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), the employment relations and consumer affairs Minister, announced on Tuesday that websites which try to pass themselves off as legitimate Government services will come under the trading standards spotlight. We have committed an additional £120,000 in this financial year to the National Trading Standards Board so that it can investigate such websites and be better equipped to take enforcement action against them. I hope that provides some reassurance to my hon. Friend and other Members. Government and Members need continuously to identify— and perhaps expose, through the kind of questions my hon. Friend has raised—the issue to our constituents so that they know they need to be careful about potentially misleading false websites.

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

As has been mentioned, Saturday is international women’s day. As my right hon. Friend may know, Plymouth city council and Devon and Cornwall police run a groundbreaking initiative called Encompass, under which the council rings every primary school each morning to check that children are in school. One sign of domestic violence is when kids do not turn up. May we have a debate on best practice, so that we can share what happens in other communities?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the steps being taken in his constituency and Plymouth by Devon and Cornwall police. As he knows, the Government are committed to working with the police and other criminal justice agencies to ensure the response to domestic violence and abuse offers the best possible protection to victims. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—who is alongside me on the Front Bench and will have heard what my hon. Friend said—has commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct a review across all police forces of the response to domestic abuse, and we will consider the case for any change to the law against the backdrop of HMIC’s findings and recommendations.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I was recently honoured to speak at the inaugural meeting of the inspirational Nuneaton women’s business club. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Lorraine Phimister of Willson Solicitors and Cheryl Stanley of Stewart, Fletcher and Barrett accountants on starting this important group, and may we have a debate on how we can encourage more women into business?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is able directly to follow up the theme of international women’s day, which is about inspiring change. That is a very positive approach. In a later debate, he might be able to amplify how the examples of those such as Lorraine and Cheryl show that women can be successful entrepreneurs and make an ever-increasing contribution to the economy of this country.

Ellison Review

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

11:25

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Mark Ellison review. In addition, I would like to update the House on work to improve standards of integrity in the police.

In July 2012, I commissioned Mark Ellison QC to conduct a review examining allegations of corruption surrounding the initial, deeply flawed, investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I also asked Mr Ellison to examine whether the Metropolitan police had evidence of corruption that it did not disclose to the Macpherson inquiry. In June last year, Peter Francis, a former special demonstration squad undercover officer, made a number of allegations about his previous role, including an allegation that he was deployed to gather evidence with which to “smear” the family of Stephen Lawrence. In response, I expanded the terms of reference of Mark Ellison’s review, encouraging him to go as far and wide as necessary to investigate the new claims.

The House will also be aware of Operation Herne, which was set up by the Metropolitan police in October 2011 to investigate allegations of misconduct by undercover police officers in its former special demonstration squad—the SDS. Operation Herne is led by Derbyshire’s chief constable, Mick Creedon, and particular elements are overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Mick Creedon’s investigation has worked closely with Mark Ellison and will publish its own report on the allegations made by Peter Francis later today.

I will now set out the key findings of the Ellison review. The full report has been published and is available in the Vote Office. The totality of what the report shows is deeply troubling, and I would like also to set out my response. I asked Mark Ellison to review and answer three key questions. First: was there evidence of corruption in the Metropolitan police during the Lawrence investigation? Secondly: was that evidence withheld from the Macpherson inquiry? And thirdly: was inappropriate undercover activity directed at the Lawrence family?

On corruption, Ellison finds that specific allegations of corruption were made against one of the officers who had worked on the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder—Detective Sergeant John Davidson. The allegations were made by a police officer to his superiors but were not brought to the attention of Macpherson. Ellison finds that this lack of disclosure was a “significant failure” by the Metropolitan police. Ellison has looked at the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s 2006 report into these allegations, as well as the Metropolitan police’s own review in 2012. He finds that both investigations were inadequate.

Ellison also finds the Metropolitan Police Service’s record-keeping on its own investigations into police corruption a cause of real concern. Key evidence was the subject of mass shredding in 2003, and a hard drive containing some of the relevant data was discovered only in November 2013, after more than a year of the MPS searching for it. As a result of this, Ellison has serious concerns that further relevant material that would show corruption has not been revealed because it cannot be found or has been destroyed.

The other question that Mark Ellison set out to answer was whether inappropriate undercover activity had been directed at the Lawrence family. Ellison finds that SDS officers were deployed into activist groups that sought to influence the Lawrence family. On Peter Francis’s allegation that he was tasked with “smearing” the Lawrence family, Ellison has found no surviving record that supports the claim. However, given the lack of written records from the era, and since such tasking would have been more likely to have been in oral, rather than written, form, Ellison says that he is “unable to reject” the claims Mr Francis has made.

Aside from the specific claims made by Mr Francis, Ellison reports on a separate and “wholly inappropriate” use of an undercover officer during the Macpherson inquiry. Ellison finds that an officer, referred to as N81, had been deployed into one of the groups seeking to influence the Lawrence family campaign, while the Macpherson inquiry was ongoing. Ellison refers to N81 as

“an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS”.

As part of his deployment, N81 reported back to the SDS personal information about the Lawrence family, as well as what is described as “tactical intelligence” around the inquiry. In August 1998, the SDS arranged for N81 to meet Richard Walton, then a detective inspector involved in writing the Met’s submissions to the Macpherson inquiry. SDS files record that they had a “fascinating and valuable exchange”. Ellison finds that the opening of this channel of communication was “completely improper”. He finds no discernible public benefit to the meeting taking place, and says that had it been disclosed at the time of the inquiry

“it would have been seen as the MPS trying to achieve some secret advantage in the Inquiry from SDS undercover deployment.”

Ellison finds that if it had been made public in 1998,

“serious public disorder of the very kind so feared by the MPS might well have followed”.

In addition, Ellison has reported on the SDS more widely. He comments on the extraordinary level of secrecy observed about any disclosure that might risk exposing an undercover officer. That meant that the SDS operated as if exempt from the proper rules of disclosure in criminal cases, and that there is real potential for miscarriages of justices to have occurred. In particular, Ellison says that there is an inevitable potential for SDS officers to have been viewed by those they infiltrated as encouraging, and participating in, criminal behaviour. He refers to officers in criminal trials failing to reveal their true identities, meaning that crucial information that should have been disclosed was not given to the defence and the court; and he finds that undercover officers sometimes failed to correct evidence given in court which they knew was wrong. That means that there is a chance that people could have been convicted for offences when they should not have been. We must therefore establish if there have been miscarriages of justice.

The Ellison review has also investigated the way in which Duwayne Brooks was treated by the Metropolitan police. The House will recall that Mr Brooks was a close friend of Stephen Lawrence and was with him when he was murdered. Mark Ellison finds that the MPS’s handling of a 1993 prosecution against Mr Brooks was unsatisfactory, but he finds no evidence that this was a deliberate attempt to smear Mr Brooks. Ellison also finds evidence of inappropriate reporting on Mr Brooks from an SDS officer. This included intelligence on Mr Brooks’s relationship with the Lawrence family and on the way in which Mr Brooks intended to approach various legal proceedings, including civil action against the Met. Ellison says that that line of reporting “should have been terminated”, but instead continued from 1999 to 2001. Finally, Mark Ellison finds that the covert recording of Mr Brooks and his solicitor in a meeting with the MPS in May 2000, while not unlawful, was neither necessary nor justified.

The findings I have outlined today are profoundly shocking. They will be of grave concern to everyone in the House and beyond, and I would like now to set out what I believe needs to happen in response. The Ellison review makes a number of findings in relation to the issue of corruption. Ellison finds that there remain some outstanding lines of inquiry which could be investigated both in relation to alleged corruption by a specific officer, and possibly by other officers. That is of the utmost seriousness, and I have asked the director general of the National Crime Agency to consider quickly how best an investigation can be taken forward into this aspect of Mr Ellison’s findings and to report back to me. Ellison also refers to possible links between an allegedly corrupt officer involved in the Stephen Lawrence case—DS Davidson—and the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan. Ellison finds that the Daniel Morgan panel may therefore uncover material relevant to the question of corruption, and so it is key that the Daniel Morgan panel continues its important work.

Operation Herne has previously found that the Home Office was instrumental in the establishment of the SDS in 1968, in the aftermath of violence at the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in Grosvenor square. It has also previously found that the Home Office initially provided direct funding for the SDS. The Home Office was the police authority for the Metropolitan Police at that time, so the interests of transparency require that we all understand what role the Department played. My permanent secretary has therefore commissioned a forensic external review in order to establish the full extent of the Home Office’s knowledge of the SDS.

In identifying the possibility that SDS secrecy may have caused miscarriages of justice, Mark Ellison recommends a further review to identify the specific cases affected. I have accepted that recommendation and Mark Ellison will lead the work, working with the CPS and reporting to the Attorney-General. That will mean that proper consideration can be given to those cases and to any implications that may arise. In doing that work, Mark Ellison and the CPS will be provided with whatever access they judge necessary to relevant documentary evidence.

Operation Herne is a criminal investigation, and it is only through a criminal investigation that criminal or misconduct charges can be brought. It is vital that we allow Operation Herne to bring its current criminal investigations to a proper conclusion, which Chief Constable Creedon informs me should take around 12 months.

There are people inside and outside our country who seek to commit serious crimes and to harm our communities, our way of life, and our nation and who wish to harm our children. It is entirely right—and indeed it is a responsibility of Governments—to ensure that the police and other agencies have effective powers to tackle those threats, and to ensure that robust legal frameworks exist for the use of sometimes intrusive tactics.

Undercover officers, sometimes working in difficult and dangerous conditions, have helped bring criminals to justice. They have stopped bad things happening to our country. None the less, the Ellison review reveals very real and substantial failings. The picture that emerges about the SDS from this report, and from other material in the public domain, is of significant failings of judgment and of intrusive supervision and leadership over a sustained period. Mark Ellison has performed a commendable public duty in revealing these issues. His report lays bare issues of great seriousness in relation not only to Peter Francis, but to the SDS more widely.

When I asked Mark Ellison to consider the SDS within the scope of his review, I asked him to tell me in his report whether he felt that a public inquiry was needed to get to the full truth. Although Ellison does not go as far as recommending a public inquiry, he is clear that in respect of the SDS in general, and the Peter Francis allegations in particular, a public inquiry might be better placed to make definitive findings.

I do not say this lightly, but the greatest possible scrutiny is now needed into what has taken place. Given the gravity of what has now been uncovered, I have decided that a public inquiry, led by a judge, is necessary to investigate undercover policing and the operation of the SDS. Only a public inquiry will be able to get to the full truth behind the matters of huge concern contained in Mark Ellison's report.

The House will understand that an inquiry cannot be set up immediately. It must wait for the conclusion of the criminal investigation and Ellison’s further work to identify possible miscarriages of justice. It is right and proper that those legal processes are allowed to conclude first. Ellison himself identifies his further review as a priority before any public inquiry can take place. That further work will also inform the inquiry’s precise terms of reference.

As I have said, the matters that I have announced today are deeply concerning. More broadly, it is imperative that public trust and confidence in the police is maintained. I do not believe corruption and misconduct to be endemic in the police, and it is clear that the majority of policemen and women conduct themselves honestly and with integrity.

In February last year, I announced to the House specific measures to address corruption and misconduct, to ensure greater transparency, to provide clearer rules on conduct, and to improve standards of professional behaviour. That work is on track. The College of Policing, which has a clear remit of enhancing police integrity, is delivering a package of measures that includes a new code of ethics. The code sets out clearly the high standards of behaviour expected from police officers.

In addition, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is being expanded and emboldened so that in future it will have responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. I can tell the House that I am reflecting on whether further proposals are needed.

I also want to ensure that those who want to report corruption and misconduct are encouraged to do so. I therefore want to strengthen protections for whistleblowers in the police and I will bring proposals to the House in due course.

We must also ensure that police forces have all the capability they need to pursue corruption, so I have today asked the chief inspector of constabulary to look specifically at the anti-corruption capability of forces, including professional standards departments.

Arrangements for undercover officer deployments are very different today from those in the early 1990s. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, all deployments must be authorised as both necessary and proportionate to the issue being investigated. This Government have introduced further safeguards. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners is now notified of all deployments and must approve those that last longer than 12 months. We have also increased the rank of the authorising officer so that all deployments must be authorised by an assistant chief constable, and those lasting longer than 12 months by a chief constable.

There also needs to be a change in culture and we need to continue the work we have already done to reform the police. From this autumn, the police will for the first time have the opportunity to bring in talented and experienced leaders from other walks of life to senior ranks. The College of Policing will provide those individuals with world-class training. Those coming in will bring a fresh perspective and approach and will open up policing culture. I believe that that is one of the most important reforms in shaping the police of the future.

I have committed to funding a cadre of new direct-entrant superintendents from this autumn until spring 2018, so I challenge all those forces that have not yet signed up to take that opportunity to do so. It is vital that the public know that policing is not a closed shop.

We are changing the culture of the police through direct entry, the code of ethics, greater transparency and professionalisation, and we are transforming the investigation of cases involving the police through reform of the IPCC, but I would like to do more. The current law on police corruption relies on the outdated common-law offence of misconduct in public office. It is untenable that we should be relying on such a legal basis to deal with serious issues of corruption in modern policing, so I shall table amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to introduce a new offence of police corruption, supplementing the existing offence of misconduct in public office and focusing clearly on those who hold police powers.

In policing, as in other areas, the problems of the past have a danger of infecting the present and can lay traps for the future. Policing stands damaged today. Trust and confidence in the Metropolitan police and in policing more generally are vital and a public inquiry and the other work I have set out are part of the process of repairing the damage.

Stephen Lawrence was murdered more than 20 years ago and it is deplorable that his family have had to wait so many years for the truth to emerge. Indeed, it is still emerging. Understandably, many of us thought that the Macpherson inquiry had answered all the questions surrounding the investigation into Stephen’s death, but the findings I have set out today are profoundly disturbing. For the sake of Doreen Lawrence, Neville Lawrence, their family and the British public we must act now to address these wrongs. I commend the statement to the House.

11:43

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement that the Home Secretary has made and the work of Mark Ellison in drawing up this extremely important but serious and disturbing review. The findings of the Ellison review are extremely troubling and the Home Secretary’s statement today is serious.

Nearly 21 years ago, a young man of 18 was killed by racist murderers. Stephen Lawrence and his family were denied justice then and it is clear that they have been denied justice ever since. The findings of the Ellison review are all the more serious because, in the 21 years since, repeated attempts have been made to get to the truth and to deliver justice but, despite all those attempts, that still has not happened. We in this House should show our support today for the Lawrence family in their continued determination to get to the truth and to justice, but we also know that no family should have to keep fighting in this way for so many decades.

Let me touch on some of the key findings that the Home Secretary has set out. First, she said that the Ellison review stated that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that one of the officers involved in the Lawrence investigation acted corruptly, but that has never been fully investigated. This is extremely serious and a full investigation is needed of the outstanding lines of inquiry identified by the Ellison review. I welcome the Home Secretary’s confirmation that this will now be looked at by the National Crime Agency, and also her confirmation that links with the Daniel Morgan inquiry will be pursued. Will she ensure—I am sure she will—that the House and the Lawrence family are kept updated with the timetable and course of this investigation?

Secondly, the Ellison review found that the full information about corruption and internal corruption investigations was not given to the Macpherson inquiry, and also that the Macpherson inquiry may have come to different conclusions as a result. It found also that the Metropolitan Police Service’s record keeping was a “cause of real concern” and that key evidence was the subject of “mass shredding” in 2003. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the NCA looks at whether information was wilfully withheld from the Macpherson inquiry or whether it was wilfully destroyed, and also looks at the wider issue of record keeping within the Metropolitan police?

The Home Secretary will be aware that we have asked before for an updated Macpherson-style review of progress since the original inquiry, because clearly a lot of changes were made as a result of the Macpherson inquiry. Does she not think this would be timely and that it would be an opportunity to look again at the conclusions of the review and whether they would have been different in the light of this further information?

Thirdly, the review found that undercover operations were carried out against those around the Lawrence family, and that information from those operations was given to those within the Metropolitan police who were involved in the legal case brought by the Lawrence family. It states:

“The reality was that N81 was, at the time, an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS.”

The review also found that the SDS, as the Home Secretary mentioned, was inappropriately and unjustifiably reporting on Duwayne Brooks. These findings are deeply disturbing. The Ellison review describes these operations as completely improper and wholly inappropriate, but the whole House will be shocked and we should condemn it in the strongest terms.

The Home Secretary is right: these revelations may mean that there have been miscarriages of justice. So I welcome her decision to instigate a public inquiry into the activities of the SDS. She will know that we have called for an inquiry into undercover policing, and it is right that there should be one. The Home Secretary is right to say that intelligence is a vital part of policing and the Ellison review says so, but it needs to be within a clear legal framework with proper safeguards in place. It is clear that that did not happen in these investigations and operations by the SDS against the Lawrence family and those linked to them at the time. We do not know how wide these miscarriages may go, but we cannot have a branch of policing that operated in this way, against the very ethos of policing and justice that it was charged with protecting and that the vast majority of police officers across the country have signed up to. Will the right hon. Lady discuss further not just with the family but with others on the Opposition Benches what form that public inquiry should take? We would welcome further discussions on that.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to keep pursuing the truth. The Macpherson review was set up to get to the truth in the first place. It is important, too, that we should also keep pursuing justice. Will she ensure that in pursuing all these lines of inquiry, consideration is given to any lines that could lead to prosecutions of the further suspects in Stephen Lawrence’s murder?

Finally, I urge the Home Secretary to consider going further in the reforms that she talked about towards the end of her remarks. There is a serious question about whether the IPCC was able to investigate in the way that the Ellison review has done when it carried out an inquiry in 2006. The IPCC is the independent body charged with such investigations and should be able to get to the truth, but it was not able to do so. It is bad for justice and for policing not to have a credible body able to get to the truth the first time round.

I agree with the Home Secretary about the importance of force-level professional standards. She will know that forces have raised concerns that resources are being transferred from force-level professional standards in corruption investigations to the IPCC. Clearly, both need to be able to do that important job.

I also ask the Home Secretary to go further on the oversight of undercover policing. Clearly that will be considered in the public inquiry, but I urge her to look, in parallel, at further safeguards. As she will know, we have previously suggested additional safeguards, including on pre-authorisation for longer-term operations, because the current oversight regime has clearly not been effective enough in preventing some of the problems that have arisen.

I also ask the Home Secretary to look at the implications for the Hillsborough inquiry. As she will know, when we had the discussion three weeks ago, we also raised concerns about whether there was inappropriate surveillance or intercept against the Hillsborough families. It is hugely important that we get to the full truth about that and that it comes out at the earliest possible opportunity.

Twenty-one years later, no one should underestimate the gravity of the institutional failure two decades ago or the seriousness of the continued institutional failure to get to the truth. The Home Secretary has rightly said that we need to get to the truth. Police officers do a vital job, helping to keep the public safe every day. They need public trust and confidence, and we all need truth and justice. Three weeks ago she made the statement about the failure of the criminal justice system to get to the truth and to get justice for the families of Hillsborough victims decades ago, and today we have heard about that failure over the murder of Stephen Lawrence decades ago.

Families should never have to wait decades to get to the truth. Everyone must recognise that, unless we get to the truth and get justice, these tragedies will continue to cast a long shadow over the vital work that our criminal justice system and the police need to do. We owe it to the families, but we also owe it to confidence in the justice system.

[Mrs May]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady’s comments on the significance of the review. Of course, as she said, it is not alone in identifying problems with how cases have been treated; the Daniel Morgan case and the results of the Hillsborough Independent Panel also revealed failings that had taken place. As she said, it is absolutely imperative, in order to ensure that there is trust and confidence in the police, which is vital for us all, that we deal with these failings appropriately and get to the truth.

As the right hon. Lady and I have said, the results of the Ellison review are truly shocking. I suspect that it will take hon. Members some time to examine all the aspects that Mark Ellison has brought out, but the extent to which the report shows that a deep failure occurred at the time of the incidents and behaviours he examined is obvious from the remarks I have made today. It is therefore necessary that we follow that up by a number of different routes.

With regard to the timetable for the further investigation I have referred to the director-general of the National Crime Agency, I will of course be happy to keep the House informed of the results and how it will be taken forward. I would expect the director-general to look at the various issues the right hon. Lady referred to when considering how the investigation should take place and what is necessary to ensure that prosecutions, if they are required, can take place.

I do not think that it will be possible for us to discuss the form of the public inquiry properly until we have seen more of the next stage of Mark Ellison’s work, which is considering the wider issue and the question of miscarriages of justice. However, I will of course want to ensure that the public inquiry has the right terms of reference and that it is able to conduct the job that we want it to do and that the Lawrence family will obviously be concerned that it does. At the right time, I think that it will be appropriate to have discussions about the form of the public inquiry and its terms of reference.

On the IPCC, as the right hon. Lady said and as I said, Mark Ellison finds that its inquiries and work were not adequate and that it did not find the corruption that is alleged to have taken place. I have already given the IPCC more resources, more power and more of a task. The right hon. Lady referred to transferring resources from professional standards departments. That is a reflection of the fact that we are transferring work to the IPCC. One concern that people have always had is about the police themselves investigating serious complaints against them. That is why we are transferring that responsibility to the IPCC and the resources to undertake it.

On the safeguards on undercover policing, we have recently made changes to enhance them so that although longer-term deployments—anything over 12 months—must be authorised by a chief constable, undercover deployments can be authorised by an assistant chief constable. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners must be notified of all deployments, so the oversight framework is already stronger.

The right hon. Lady rightly raised the concern of Hillsborough families that they may have been subject to inappropriate surveillance. I understand that a formal complaint has been made to the IPCC about that, and that it is considering how best to investigate the concerns that have been raised.

There is much still to be done. Change has taken place over the years but sadly, what we have seen today is that it is necessary to continue the inquiries and investigations to ensure that, for the sake of the family particularly and for all of us and our trust in the police, we get to the truth.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I pay public tribute to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and John Walker for going to see the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), which led to the inquiry being set up, and to those who organised the meeting between the family and Nelson Mandela, which gave a profile and quiet dignity to reflect properly the way the family had reacted? I pay tribute to the family and those with them, including Baroness Howells, who managed to avoid any disturbance, and I add the name of John Philpott, the local Plumstead commander who, within 24 hours of the murderous attack on Stephen Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks, organised a community meeting at the town hall and said publicly that people knew that Stephen Lawrence was a good person, not a bad person. When the further inquiries take place, will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ask that consideration be given to using Clive Driscoll, the police officer who helped to have one person convicted, as an adviser, if not a member, so that what the police have known for years can be added in?

In both this case and another six years later in Brighton, when constituents of mine, Michael and Jay Abatan were attacked, the first failing was that the police did not arrest the people who were thought to be suspects and hold them separately, or have proper surveillance and gather the evidence that was available at the time. We are now sweeping up mistakes that were made later. I pay tribute to all the police who do their job properly and find the evidence straightaway so that justice can be pursued in court.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we should never forget that there are police officers out there who do their job perfectly properly with honesty and integrity, and are bringing criminals to justice as a result of their work. We should not forget to pay tribute—he is right to do so—to those who have campaigned for many years alongside the family and in the House to ensure that those who were responsible are brought to justice and that we can get at the truth.

When the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) set up the Macpherson inquiry and when its results were received, everyone assumed that it had been able to look at all the evidence and to get to the truth. Sadly, as we now know, that was not the case, and certain matters that should have been referred to it were not.

My hon. Friend refers to a particular officer and the need to ensure that in further investigations police experience and knowledge of the case is not lost. That matter has been drawn to my attention, and I am giving proper consideration to it.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that there is to be an inquiry into the goings-on within the SDS. However, we should not be sidetracked from the core issue that initiated the Ellison investigation and review, which is that corruption was an influence over the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and that evidence and information were withheld from the Macpherson inquiry. I would like the Secretary of State to confirm that that will be addressed in part of the public inquiry where people have to come and give evidence under oath.

In July 2006, there was a programme on TV called “The Boys Who Killed Stephen Lawrence”. Deputy Commissioner John Yates went on that programme and said that Detective Sergeant John Davidson was a corrupt officer. I contacted the IPCC and the Metropolitan police and asked to know in what way his activities affected the inquiry. In a meeting with the Metropolitan police, I was told categorically that his corruption had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. We now know from the Ellison inquiry that the evidence on that was destroyed, so on what basis did the Metropolitan police tell me that? I also asked the IPCC to investigate what other crimes Detective Sergeant Davidson had been involved in that may have been corrupted by his illegal activities, and answer got I none.

All this information needs to be investigated thoroughly in a full public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the public inquiry will not just focus on the SDS but take in those wider issues, because nothing short of that will be satisfactory to the public or the family of Stephen Lawrence?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the role that the hon. Gentleman has played in relation to this matter, the concern that he has expressed over the years, and the efforts that he has made, as he has just evidenced to us, to ensure that the truth will be found in relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

On the public inquiry, as I indicated earlier, we will be looking at the terms of reference once it is clearer that Mark Ellison has been able to do his work in relation to the question of the SDS in general and miscarriages of justice. It is specifically in respect of the SDS and the Peter Francis allegations that Mark Ellison identifies that a public inquiry might be better placed to make definitive findings, and that is the background against which we will look at the inquiry’s terms of reference. In relation to some of the other aspects that he investigated, he has not highlighted the potential for a public inquiry to find further evidence and get to the truth behind certain allegations. As I said, the inquiry will look at undercover policing and the SDS, in particular, but we will set the terms of reference in due course when Mark Ellison has had an opportunity to conduct the further review that has been proposed in his report and that I have accepted as a recommendation.

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

I welcome the thoroughness of the Ellison inquiry and my right hon. Friend’s resolute response to it. Does she agree that undercover operations, although sometimes necessary, were wholly inappropriate and had no valid purpose when used against the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks, and that that underlines the need not only for effective accountability for such operations but an ethical framework within which they are conducted? Will she say any more about how she hopes to protect whistleblowers, whose lives and careers are often shattered when they serve the public and the vast majority of honest police officers by bringing corruption to public notice?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend. In fact, “wholly inappropriate” is precisely the wording that Mark Ellison uses in relation to the use of an undercover officer during the Macpherson inquiry. I think that many people will be absolutely shocked by the fact that there was an individual who was, in Mark Ellison’s words—I used the quote as did the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—

“an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp”

at a time when the family were in opposition to the MPS in judicial proceedings. I am sure that everybody recognises that that was wholly inappropriate and that this is not the behaviour that we expect from the police.

On the question on whistleblowing, my right hon. Friend makes a very valid and important point. It is crucial. The issue of whistleblowing in various aspects of the public sector has been raised in recent times. It is very important that police officers feel that they are able to raise matters of concern and that those matters of concern will be properly considered and properly dealt with. I have not quite finalised my proposals in this area, so I ask my right hon. Friend to have some patience. I will inform the House in due course of how we intend to improve the ability of police officers to be whistleblowers and to feel that they are able to do that and what they feel is absolutely right and of benefit to the vast majority of offers, who operate with integrity.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I first welcome the resolute determination the Home Secretary has shown in pursuing this issue and thank her for establishing the Ellison inquiry and for making this statement, which I have to say is one of the most shocking and serious statements I have heard by any Minister from any party over the whole of the 35 years I have been in this House?

As the Home Secretary and the police authority for London who established the Macpherson inquiry, I was struck, in the three months it took me to establish that inquiry and agree its terms of reference, by the reluctance of the Metropolitan Police Service to have any inquiry that focused forensically on the facts, as it had successfully resisted such calls for four years. I attributed that defensiveness to a bureaucratic unwillingness to accept scrutiny, but it is now clear that there was venality, probably at the highest level of the Metropolitan police, by which, against all rules, they refused to offer evidence, as they were required to do, to the full judicial inquiry of Sir William Macpherson. I have to say, given what the Home Secretary has now said, that had that evidence been offered, I think it is at least possible that Sir William Macpherson and his colleagues would have concluded not only, as they did, that there had been institutional racism, but that there had been institutional corruption as well.

I had a personal interest in the issue of the SDS and that organisation’s activities to go after subversives, because in 1974 the Security Service informed me of, and showed me, records that had been kept on my family and me from 1960 until 1971, when I finished as a student activist. When I went to the Home Office, I said that I did not want to see my file, but that I did want to know whether they were carrying on wasting money looking at subversives like myself, my family and successors. I was assured that that kind of activity was not going on, so I hope very much that this inquiry will get to the bottom of it.

May I also say—this is my last point—that I am very pleased that the permanent secretary is going to scrutinise what happened under the previous Government? I will give every possible co-operation to that inquiry, because, to my certain knowledge, I knew nothing whatever of these continuing activities, and had I done so, I would have stopped them immediately.

[Mrs May]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, one of the things that comes through clearly in the Ellison review is that part of the ethos of the SDS was precisely that of secrecy, to the extent that very few people—this is one of the difficulties in establishing exactly who knew—within the Metropolitan police, let alone outside it, knew. This was kept very tight and close in terms of those who were even aware that the SDS was in existence, let alone of what it was doing.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the specific issue of corruption. Everybody will be appalled that there was an allegation of corruption by an individual police officer that was brought to the attention of superior officers in the Metropolitan police, yet it was not referred to the Macpherson inquiry.

One has to ask what the thinking was of somebody who thought that it was right not to refer the allegation to the Macpherson inquiry. I find it absolutely incredible that that further reference did not take place. As Mark Ellison says, it was a significant failure by the Metropolitan police.

I just want to comment on the issue of culture, which is part of this matter, and also goes back to the question about whistleblowing asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The culture of looking inward and protecting each other was rife at the time. One of the issues that can be looked at in the public inquiry is the whole question of Peter Francis’s allegations against that background and against what was actually going on in the SDS at the time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say to the House that we have so far had four questions in 14 minutes? We have had questions from Members with very close personal experience of these matters either as constituency representatives or holders of ministerial office. I think that the House will agree that I have therefore very properly allowed latitude, because these matters need to be treated seriously, but we have a lot of other very pressing business. I am afraid that I must now insist on short questions and short answers so that we can proceed expeditiously. I know that I will be helped supremely in this matter by Nicola Blackwood.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

The findings could not be more serious, and they cannot help but undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. This is far from the first time that the competency of the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been put in question. I welcome the steps that have been taken to strengthen the IPCC and the oversight of undercover operations, but I urge the Home Secretary to go further with the reforms so that the public can have confidence in the oversight mechanisms, and so that those mechanisms are sufficiently robust and sufficiently funded to root out police failings wherever they may be found, not just to put right past wrongs, but to prevent future wrongs.

[Mrs May]

As I have said, I am considering whether any further steps are necessary in relation to the IPCC. The step I am taking, which goes to the heart of what my hon. Friend says, is asking Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to look at the current capability of police forces to identify and deal with corruption inside their forces. Today, we are talking about events that took place in the past, but people need to know that they can have every confidence that the police will identify and root out corruption in the future.

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

Since the brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993—as we know, he was murdered for only one reason: the colour of his skin; that is why he was put to death—is not the very strong and justified impression that much more time was spent investigating the Lawrence family and Mr Brooks than in bringing those responsible to justice? May I simply say that a society based on the rule of law should feel thoroughly ashamed of what has been revealed in the Ellison review and of what the Home Secretary has said today? A thorough investigation into undercover policing is absolutely essential, and I welcome the public inquiry.

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the public inquiry, and I note his other comments. It is of course the case that the initial investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder was deeply flawed. As we know, it is only recently that the family has seen any level of justice in relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It is imperative that the investigations continue, and that as we bring forward various other measures, we make sure and keep our focus on ensuring that we get to the truth about the murder of Stephen Lawrence and, obviously, the behaviour of officers in the Metropolitan police and the way in which the investigation and other matters were conducted.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The allegations are extremely serious, indeed. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said about the general nature of policing, they show that there is a great need to change the culture of policing in this country. She has put a lot of faith in bringing in outside talent, but does she really think that that is enough?

[Mrs May]

Bringing in outside talent is a very important part of this process. It will bring different cultures, attitudes and experiences into the police, which will be a significant part of changing the culture. I also think that other steps we are taking—such as the code of ethics by the College of Policing, and the transfer of investigations of serious complaints against the police to the IPCC so that the police do not investigate themselves—are all part of the picture. I believe that opening up senior ranks to people from outside is an important part of bringing in a more diverse culture, experience and approach, which can only be of benefit.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

May I thank the Home Secretary both for the content of her statement and for the tone of what she has said? She mentioned the fact that allegations were made to officers in the Metropolitan police about corruption during the initial investigation. Will she confirm that none of the officers to whom those allegations were made is still employed by the Metropolitan police?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Lady will permit me, I will write to her on that matter so that I am absolutely certain of the facts I give her.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The review discloses breathtaking and monumental corruption, and it will take a monumental effort to begin to repair the damage that has been caused. Among other things, the report discloses that officers in criminal trials failed to reveal their true identities, and that they failed to correct evidence that they knew to be wrong. As a result, there will doubtless have been miscarriages of justice in other cases, which it will be extremely complicated and difficult to root out, but does the Home Secretary agree that that must happen? Does she also agree that the culture of policing needs to change considerably not just in relation to this matter, but generally? Will she look at the report of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into undercover policing, which has already taken place? Finally, may I suggest that what she said about adding an offence of police corruption is extremely important, because the current offence of misconduct in a public office is clearly insufficient?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the new offence, which I, too, think is important. He is absolutely right on the issue of miscarriages of justice: it is imperative to look into it, and I am grateful to Mark Ellison for undertaking that work. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made it clear that every effort will be made to ensure that this work can be completed properly and fully. We obviously do not yet know quite what the extent of that work will be, but with his experience of the work that he has already done, Mark Ellison is absolutely the right person to take it forward. As I have said, he will work with the CPS and report to the Attorney-General. If necessary, cases will of course be put to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary recall that when she began her programme of comprehensive police reform—it was then led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who was in the Chamber for her statement—many people questioned the need for it? I do not think that anyone will say that today, but does she agree that we owe it to the vast majority of police officers who carry out their duties with honesty and integrity to state that we know that police corruption is limited to a few immoral individuals?

[Mrs May]

I pay tribute to the work on police reform done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and which is being continued by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. I hope that everybody sees that it was important to embark on police reform and, as I have said, we are obviously taking forward further measures, which is important not just for public confidence in the police, but because, as my hon. Friend says, we owe it to the majority of police officers who work with honesty and integrity—day in, day out—to prevent crime, catch criminals and keep us safe.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My constituency has a majority BME—black and minority ethnic—population. Policing is by consent, and it is obviously crucial that the whole community has confidence in the chain of command, the policies enacted and operational decisions made on the ground. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree with me about the misuse and abuse of stop-and-search powers, which are often targeted at a particular section of the community and seem to be unfairly used?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right that certain communities are subject to stop and search disproportionately. The Government, the Prime Minister and I are clear that we need changes to stop and search to ensure that people have confidence in it. It is an important tool, but people must have confidence in its use.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was an undercover military officer in 1978. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is absolutely right and proper that undercover operations are continued by the police, and that the men and women who are involved in those operations, who act with integrity and sometimes with great courage, should be applauded?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Undercover policing is an important tool. It is important that the police can use it. Many undercover police officers act very bravely and put themselves at great risk in the work that they do. Such work is important in catching criminals and in protecting the public. We need to ensure that all undercover officers operate with full honesty and integrity, and that there is a clear and appropriate legal and supervisory framework so that the boundaries of that activity are known. Sadly, it is clear from the Ellison review that, in relation to the SDS, there were rather fewer boundaries in that activity than there should have been.

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

I commend the Home Secretary for her work to root out corruption in the police. Does she agree that we must not only restore public confidence in the police force, but boost the morale of the very good officers who make up the vast majority of the police and ensure that they are seen to be doing a good job?

[Mrs May]

Absolutely. I hope that the majority of police officers, who operate with honesty and integrity day by day, will welcome our commitment to rooting out any corruption or misbehaviour within the police. We owe it to them to ensure that they see that happening and know that we value the work that they do. We want to ensure that all officers operate with honesty and integrity.

Nuclear Submarines

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

12:22

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

Before I make my statement, I am sure that the House will want to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of the sapper from 32 Engineer Regiment who sadly died while on duty in Helmand province yesterday as a result of non-battle related injuries sustained in Camp Bastion. The incident is not believed to have involved any enemy action. The serviceman’s next of kin have been informed and have requested the customary 24-hour delay before further details are released.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have decided to refuel the nuclear reactor in HMS Vanguard, one of the UK’s four ballistic missile submarines, during its planned deep maintenance period, which begins in 2015. It will be the second time that Vanguard’s reactor has been refuelled since it entered service in 1993. I will explain to the House now why I have reached the decision to conduct a second refuelling.

As many hon. Members will know, alongside the operational reactors on board our ballistic missile submarines, a prototype reactor of the same class has been running at the naval reactor test establishment at Dounreay in Scotland since 2002. Its purpose is to help us assess how the reactor cores within our submarines will perform over time. It has therefore been run for significantly longer periods and at a significantly higher intensity than the cores of the same type in our submarines, to allow us to identify early any age or use-related issues that may arise later in the lives of the operational reactor cores.

In January 2012, low levels of radioactivity were detected in the cooling water surrounding the prototype core. Low levels of radioactivity are a normal product of the nuclear reaction that takes place within the fuel, but they would not normally enter the cooling water. The water is contained within the sealed reactor circuit, and I can reassure the House that there has been no detectable radiation leak from that sealed circuit. The independent Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have been kept informed.

When the coolant radioactivity was first detected, the reactor was shut down as a precaution. Following investigations and a series of trials, and with the agreement of the relevant regulator, the reactor was restarted in November 2012. It continues to operate safely. Both radiation exposure for workers at the site and discharges from the site have remained well inside the strictly prescribed limits set by the regulators. Indeed, against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s measurement scale for nuclear-related events, this issue is classed as level zero, which is described by the agency as

“below scale—no safety significance”.

The naval reactor test establishment is, and remains, a very safe and low-risk site. However, the fact that low levels of radioactivity have been detected in the coolant water clearly means that the reactor is not operating exactly as planned. As one would expect, we have conducted extensive investigations to determine how the radioactivity has entered the cooling water. We believe that it is due to a microscopic breach in a small area of the metal cladding that surrounds one fuel element within the core of the reactor. It is not yet clear why that breach has occurred. It might be related to the age of the reactor, it might be a function of the high intensity use to which we have subjected the test reactor or it might be a random event. We do not yet know.

On current plans, the Dounreay test reactor will start to be decommissioned in 2015. We are confident that the reactor can be operated safely until that date. We may decide to bring forward decommissioning if it will allow us better to understand the causes of the breach through examination of the reactor core.

This occurrence does not present any safety risk. It does, however, potentially present additional risks to future submarine availability. Consequently, I have had to consider carefully the implications for the Vanguard-class and Astute-class submarines, which use the same design of reactor core. We constantly monitor our submarine reactors. We have never detected a similar occurrence to that found in the prototype reactor. We are confident that if one did occur, we would detect it straight away.

Despite that, we now have to consider the possibility, however remote, that the useful operating life of this particular design of core may not be as long as previously expected. As a result, I have decided that, as a precautionary measure, we should refuel HMS Vanguard, the oldest SSBN class and the one with the highest mileage, as it were, on her reactor, when she enters her scheduled deep maintenance period in 2015. This is the responsible option: replacing the core on a precautionary basis at the next arising opportunity, rather than waiting to see if the core needs to be replaced at a later date, which would mean returning Vanguard for a period of unscheduled deep maintenance, potentially putting at risk the resilience of our ballistic missile submarine operations.

The refuelling will increase our confidence that Vanguard will be able to operate effectively and safely until the planned fleet of Successor submarines begins to be delivered from 2028. The refuelling will be conducted within the current planned dry dock maintenance period for Vanguard, which starts in late 2015 and will last for about three and a half years. It is therefore expected to have no impact on deterrent operations. The additional cost of refuelling Vanguard is estimated to be about £120 million over the next six years.

A decision on whether to refuel the next oldest submarine, HMS Victorious, when she enters her next planned deep maintenance period does not need to be made until 2018. It will be informed by further analysis of the data from the reactor at Dounreay and examination of the core after the reactor is decommissioned. I have decided, again on a precautionary basis, that in the meantime we will take the necessary steps to keep open the option of refuelling Victorious. That will involve investment at Devonport and at the reactor plant at Raynesway in Derby to preserve our ability to conduct nuclear refuelling. The total cost of that investment is still being scoped, but it is expected to be of the order of £150 million.

Those costs—perhaps £270 million in total—will be met from existing provision for financial risk in the submarine programme budget. They represent substantially less than 10% of that risk provision and will not impact on the more than £4 billion of contingency that we are holding in the overall defence equipment plan.

The implications for the Astute-class submarines will be the subject of further analysis, particularly once we have had the opportunity to examine the core from Dounreay. As the Astutes are only now entering service, and thus their cores have seen far less operation, a decision on whether to refuel any of them will not be needed for many years to come. These decisions do not affect our plans for the Successor submarine that will replace the Vanguard class. Refuelling HMS Vanguard does not enable us to extend further the overall life of the submarine, which is limited by a number of factors other than the age of the reactor. Neither do these decisions have any implications for our confidence in the reactor we are developing for the Successor submarine, which is based on a completely different design.

Finally, the House will understand that our naval reactor cores are a highly specialised, UK-bespoke maritime design, and there is no read-across from this occurrence to the performance of naval reactors operated by other countries, or indeed reactors operating in the UK civil nuclear sector. The safety of the UK’s naval nuclear reactor at the test establishment at Dounreay, and on our submarines, is of critical importance to us, as is the maintenance of continuous at-sea deterrence. That is why I have taken the decision to apply the precautionary principle, even though there is no evidence at this stage that the problem detected with the test reactor is likely to present in the operational reactors. We will continue to work with independent military and civil regulators to ensure the continuing safety of nuclear operations at Dounreay, Devonport, Faslane and at sea.

The Government are committed to maintaining our nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of the UK’s sovereignty and freedom of action against threats of nuclear aggression, wherever they may come from. Our submarine-based continuous at-sea deterrent remains the most capable and cost-effective way of doing that. The decisions I have announced today are responsible and precautionary, and will assure our ability safely to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent into the future. I commend this statement to the House.

12:32

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I join the Defence Secretary in paying tribute to the soldier from the 32 Engineer Regiment. His death is a reminder of the service and sacrifice given to our country by the armed forces, and our thoughts are with his family and loved ones at this time. I thank the Secretary of State for briefing me on this statement last night, and for sight of it. These are complicated and sensitive matters, and it is in all our interests that they are debated in a calm and reasonable manner that befits the seriousness of the issue.

I will come to the specific issues raised about the reactor in Dounreay and the nuclear submarines, but I start by asking the Secretary of State why he is making this statement now, and why the House is being told about this matter only today. He says that this issue was discovered in January 2012, which is more than two years ago. Does he not think it would have been right to brief the official Opposition spokesperson on defence then? Why did that not happen, and why has it not happened at any time since then until now? Should Parliament have known earlier?

There must be public confidence in the Government to be open and transparent about such matters. A fault, however small, that develops in a nuclear reactor is something that the British people, and this Parliament, should have been told about. This is an issue of national security and national importance, and it will cause particular concern in Scotland. When did the Scottish Secretary know? Did the Defence Secretary or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland discuss the issue with the First Minister of Scotland and the Scottish Government? It seems to me that it was incumbent on the UK Government to inform and work with the Scottish Government on this matter. I accept that the Secretary of State briefed me and other colleagues last night and this morning, and I appreciate his candour, but does he agree that it has come rather late?

Let me turn to the specific issues with the PWR2 nuclear reactor at Dounreay and the implications for the Royal Navy’s fleet submarines and ballistic missile submarines. There will inevitably be concern when the words “nuclear”, “reactor” and “fault” are used in the same sentence. Can the Secretary of State provide further assurance that there has been, and there is now, absolutely no risk to workers on site, personnel in service, or the wider public? Having discovered that there was a problem at the Vulcan naval reactor test establishment, on what basis was the decision made to continue running the reactor? We know it is now in maintenance. Will he tell the House when a decision will be made about whether to continue running the reactor? I understand that if a decision is made to stop running it, it takes three years from the point at which it shuts down to the point at which it has cooled enough to be examined. That is a long time. Has he examined the potential to look at the PWR2 currently being constructed for the later Astute-class boats, and does that provide an opportunity effectively to X-ray every aspect of the cladding to see if we can detect any faults? There will be concerns about the impact that might have on the Astute-class submarines. Will the Secretary of State outline what those are?

The decision to maintain a test reactor so that faults could be identified has proven a good one. A fault has been found, however small, in PWR2—the test reactor in Dounreay. What plans are there to ensure that we have the same security with PWR3, which will be used on the Successor-class submarines? Have there been discussions with our US counterparts to see what lessons or expertise can be borrowed? In the current international defence and security climate, many people will be asking an important question: will this affect the UK’s ability to maintain continuous at-sea deterrence? Will it be necessary to adjust the operations timetable of the continuous at-sea deterrent? Finally, can the Defence Secretary confirm the total cost envisaged and that it will have no impact on the rest of the defence programme? If the cost is met by the submarine contingency fund, will that have any impact on the existing submarine programme?

Given that there will be concern about the length of time it has taken to inform the House and the public about this issue, will the Secretary of State tell the House what plans he has to keep Parliament and the country involved and updated throughout this process? Does he agree that public confidence and trust on these issues is crucial, and that people should have been told earlier? There will rightly be anxiety about these matters. The British public must be assured that everything is being done to resolve them, and they must be confident that Britain’s defence and security is paramount and will be maintained. That is best done through openness and transparency.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and by and large we agree on the importance of these matters, but I am afraid I must start by saying that I am not particularly minded to take lectures on transparency from someone who was a member of the previous Government. The decisions we have made throughout this process from January 2012 have been carefully balanced. I have, of course, considered throughout whether it would be appropriate, sensible or helpful to make a public statement, and I remind him that the advice we have received throughout from the regulators and experts is that no safety issues are arising, and that this incident scores as a level zero event on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scale—an event that requires no action and presents no risk.

We have kept the independent military nuclear safety regulator and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency informed of matters, as is proper, and I have no doubt that there will be people who say that the Scottish Government should have been informed. We will see when we hear from the representative of the Scottish National party in a moment whether it will approach this matter from a responsible and sensible point of view. Key Ministers within the Government were, of course, aware of these issues throughout.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) asked why we decided to restart the reactor. Once it was clear that there was no safety risk and that a safety case for restarting it had been built and approved by the regulators, we continued with the operation of the test reactor to fulfil its intended purpose: to have delivered the same amount of core burn, and some more, as the most aged operational reactor will have achieved by the end of its service life.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the reactors being built for the Astute submarines, which are also core H reactors. I confirm that after this issue arose, all reactors in-build were re-examined with the best equipment available, to look for signs of anything that might give any further clue as to what has happened with the core H reactor at Dounreay.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the decision not to have a test reactor for the successor series—the PWR3 reactor. There are several technical reasons for this. The reactor is being built to an entirely different design specification. Because of the way in which technology has evolved, the engineering tolerances will be much less challenging in the PWR3 reactor and we have access to far more advanced computer modelling techniques, which can provide an adequate substitute for prototyping. However, in view of the concerns that have been expressed about this decision, I have asked the chief scientific adviser to review again the evidence on which the decision not to operate a test reactor was based, and to report back to me on the appropriateness of that decision. I will inform the House in due course of the result of that review.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether CASD is affected. It will not be, and that is the point of taking this decision today. Refuelling Vanguard during an existing planned deep-maintenance period means that the operational rotation of the Vanguard-class submarines will not be affected. That is the reason we have taken that decision. It is not a safety-related decision; it is a submarine availability-related decision.

On the question of cost and as I have said already, we expect the total cost of the measures I have announced today to be about £270 million, all of which will come from contingency provision within the submarine programme that is currently unused. We do not expect it to have any impact on the wider defence programme. The contingency within the submarine programme is more than adequate—this amount is substantially less than 10% of the total contingency in the programme.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I intended to make further statements. Clearly, I will of course notify the House if anything of significance happens; if we make a decision to decommission the reactor at Dounreay early; or if there are any further significant developments in respect of the reactor while it is running. I stress that we have reacted properly throughout, in consultation with the regulatory authorities, and we have dealt with this matter in the same way that any minor incident in a reactor, whether military or civil, would routinely be dealt with.

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

My right hon. Friend said that the consequences of this announcement for the Astute fleet would be the subject of further review. We all understand that the levels of radioactivity that he has announced are low, but what monitoring will be done of the cooling system in our operational Astutes to reassure the crews and all those involved that they are not in any way at risk?

[Mr Hammond]

We carry out daily sampling and analysis of the coolant water in all our nuclear submarines.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Can I say to the Secretary of State that the fact that some people may react in an irresponsible way is a reason to be more open on this issue, not a reason to be less open—as he appeared to suggest in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)?

I am grateful for the briefings that the Secretary of State has given me and others. It will take three years from the decommissioning of the test reactor to be able to examine fully that hot piece of apparatus. In the meantime, we will continue to build the same reactors for the Astute class of submarine. Is he satisfied that we will do everything we can in that interim period to make certain that we minimise any risk and that we do not elongate or widen the safety margins on the reactor during the manufacturing process or otherwise?

[Mr Hammond]

Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman might anticipate, those are questions that I have already asked of the programme managers throughout this process. There are technical factors in the design of the core that limit the scope to change aspects of the design, but now that we are aware that this microscopic breach has occurred in the test reactor, it will focus the examination of the as yet uninstalled cores that are being built for the Astute class of submarine.

The test reactor at Dounreay has been hammered. This is the nuclear equivalent of putting an engine on a test bed and running it flat out at maximum revs to see what happens. It does not mean that what happens to that engine will happen in a car that is being driven normally on the roads.

It will take approximately three years from the time of decommissioning the reactor to being able to examine it fully. We now have to make a decision about whether more will be learned by continuing to run the reactor at Dounreay until its intended decommissioning date in 2015 or by decommissioning it a year and a half early and thus being able to examine the core a year and a half earlier than we otherwise would. The balance needs to be struck on that and I will act on the best scientific advice that I receive.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on his decision. What we are seeing is a vindication of the safety models that have been followed by successive Governments in relation to our nuclear submarine programme, and there is certainly no excuse for scaremongering or irresponsible language. In fact, we should be proud and reassured that safety is given such a high priority even at the financial cost that he has outlined.

In order to give the House an understanding of the scale of the problem, will my right hon. Friend give us an indication of the percentage core burn of the Vulcan test reactor, and how that percentage compares with the percentage burn on the Vanguard submarine?

[Mr Hammond]

As my right hon. Friend says, Governments of both persuasions over the years have adopted a prudent and precautionary approach to the safety of our nuclear submarine fleet, and have invested money, where it is necessary to do so, on the basis that safety always takes priority. As I have said, the decisions that I am announcing today are not driven by concerns about safety. There is no safety risk identified from this incident. They are driven primarily by concerns about future submarine availability.

The information on core burn is classified, but I can reassure the House that the percentage of core burn on the reactor at Dounreay exceeds by far the percentage of core burn on any of our operational reactors.

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

Continuous at-sea deterrence is of course the foundation of our deterrent policy. As the Secretary of State knows much better than I do, it requires not only the Vanguard-class submarines to be continuously at sea, but the Trafalgar and the Astute classes to be around. The worst-case scenario would be the refuelling of all Vanguard and Astute submarines. Does he have complete confidence that CASD would be maintained if that were to happen, and what additional capacity would be needed to carry out such an extensive venture?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman asks sensible questions, but he is verging into speculative matters at this stage. This is a very tiny flaw in a reactor that has been hammered at maximum output over a long time. It is premature to suggest that when we examine the core we will find some systemic need to refuel all other reactors of a similar type. That is not the expectation. However, as he would expect, we will plan for every contingency, and the measures that I have announced will allow us to preserve the option of refuelling further Vanguard and Astute submarines should that be deemed expedient in the future.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and commend him on his actions. He has acted, rightly, on the precautionary principle—and, God willing, he is acting more cautiously than is necessary. The UK has the highest nuclear standards, but one can never be too cautious on nuclear safety. If the decision has been taken to refuel Vanguard, which had not been anticipated or expected, and possibly others, what implications will that have, not for the operation of Astute but for the timeline of its production at Barrow?

[Mr Hammond]

That is, again, a good question. I am assured that the investment I have announced today to expand capacity at Raynesway, coupled with the buffer already in the supply line—reactors for future Astute class submarines are built ahead of the need to install them in the submarines—means that we can take a core, which was built with the intention of being installed in Astute, to refuel Vanguard. We will have been able to catch up on the production of cores before we get to a point where there would be any impact on the Astute programme. End result: there will be no impact on the timeline of Astute.

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

The Secretary of State should acknowledge that Scottish MPs and Scotland’s Parliament have voted against nuclear weapons and that there is opposition from the Churches, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and voluntary organisations. He has said that he will plan for every contingency. How will Scottish independence alter his plans, when weapons of mass destruction are removed from Scotland’s environment, and when did he consult Scotland’s Government?

[Mr Hammond]

This is from the man whose defence policy is based on being able to join NATO, an avowedly nuclear alliance. As I have said many times in the House, we do not expect the Scottish people to vote for independence and we are not planning for that contingency. However, as one would expect, the Royal Navy operates an extensive set of contingency plans for dealing with all sorts of contingent events that may occur.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the whole of the deterrent programme, both maintenance and build, is characterised by monopolies that are pretty much unavoidable. Does he agree that, notwithstanding this actually quite small hiccup, this arrangement, under Governments of all kinds, works well and offers lessons for wider consideration across procurement?

[Mr Hammond]

Our track record speaks for itself. Since 1963, the Royal Navy has operated 80-odd cores, both at sea and at shore-based test reactors. Rolls-Royce has acted as the technical authority and delivery partner, providing the design and manufacture of cores in an arrangement that has been very satisfactory. Nothing that I am announcing should in any way be taken to undermine the success of that relationship, or Rolls-Royce’s status as a world-leading provider of military reactor cores.

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

Having worked with radiation for a number of years in my own career and having followed very closely the development of the civil nuclear programme, I fully concur with the Secretary of State’s comments on the underlying science. On level zero events, similar events, such as moving waste material out of civilian sites, are subject to local communication. Why was there not a parallel situation in the case of Dounreay? Why were local stakeholders not involved? Will he ensure that the chief scientific adviser is given the maximum freedom, within the limits of classified information, to share scientific findings with the broadest possible group of nuclear experts?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that within the circle of nuclear experts—it is quite a small circle—there has already been discussion on these issues in the past two years. There is no requirement to notify level zero events, but we did notify the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and, of course, the military nuclear regulator. It is important to note that SEPA’s primary focus is on emissions from the site—that is, what is in the discharge from the site—and there has been no measurable change in the radiation discharge. That is the important point for people living in those communities.[Official Report, 11 March 2014, Vol. 577, c. 3MC.]

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

If the defect seen on the Vulcan test reactor at Dounreay were to be identified in one of the Astute or Vanguard-class submarines, what would the consequences be, from a safety perspective, for the crew on board those vessels? How would the removal of one or more submarine affect operational maritime capabilities?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend asks a good question. I emphasise again that there are no safety implications from this type of event—a submarine could continue to operate safely. This is a tiny amount of radiation in a coolant that is itself circulating in a closed system inside the sealed reactor shield, so there is no risk to the submarine crew. If such an event occurred, it would be detected almost immediately because of the daily sampling and analysis of coolant water. We are already looking at the operational implications, in a reactor of this type, of a very minor breach. As I have already told the House, the test reactor at Dounreay was restarted in 2012 and has subsequently run without any further problems. It is not absolutely clear that the result of such a minor event occurring in an operational reactor would necessarily mean that the reactor would have to be withdrawn from service. Clearly, we would do so on a precautionary basis while we considered a longer term course of action, but it is not yet clear that that would have to be the long-term state of affairs.

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

The Secretary of State has said a number of times that SEPA was kept informed. Will he inform the House at what stage it was first informed? Given that SEPA is an Executive agency of the devolved Scottish Government, were Scottish Ministers informed by SEPA and, if that was the case, why were Scottish Ministers informed but Members of this House not?

[Mr Hammond]

SEPA was informed in October 2012 and has been involved in the discussions since that point. SEPA is an Executive agency of the Scottish Government, but it deals with operators in relation to the discharge of its regulatory functions on a properly regulated statutory basis and, usually, on a confidential basis. Clearly, SEPA did not feel that this event, as a level zero event, needed to be brought to the attention of Ministers or anyone in the central Scottish Government.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that no lives were ever endangered by this activity. What discussions has he had with Babcock to ensure that it has the skilled work force in place and is able to deliver the work? It is important to ensure that that happens.

[Mr Hammond]

Obviously, the implications for Devonport are that a line of work, which was expected to end with the completion of the current refuelling of Vengeance, will now continue at least until 2019, with the refuelling of HMS Vanguard. At this stage, we have not quantified the precise impact on jobs and other activities at Devonport, but it is likely to be modest. Most of the people employed on the refuelling programme were expected to be absorbed elsewhere in the dockyard work force. We are confident that, with the announcements I have made today, there will be the capacity to carry out the Vanguard refuelling and to retain the ability to carry out the Victorious refuelling if necessary.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

The stupidity of both the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government knows no bounds. It is clear from the fact that the Scottish Government have known about this for nearly two years and the United Kingdom Government have known about it for more than two years that they hold the people of this country in contempt. I live very close to Faslane, and it worries me that something could happen that the people of my country and my city know nothing about. The Secretary of State must go and tell people about it, otherwise no one will believe anything he says in future about anything to do with nuclear power.

[Mr Hammond]

I am not sure about taking any lessons on stupidity. I am afraid that this is scaremongering of the worst kind. I have told the hon. Gentleman and the House that no safety issues are at stake, and all the scientific evidence supports the position that I have taken. Level zero events are not routinely made public; they are not routinely reported. That has been the practice of successive Governments, and it is the practice throughout the civil and military nuclear sector.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The refit for HMS Vanguard will take three and a half years, and that was planned. Does not that fact, and the requirement for us to have a permanent at-sea deterrent, support the plans for a fleet of four Successor SSBNs?

[Mr Hammond]

Indeed they do. If we are to maintain our posture of continuous at-sea deterrence, we will need to begin replacing the current fleet in the late 2020s. That is not primarily to do with the lives of the reactors or the cores; it is to do with the life expectancy of other components of the submarines that cannot effectively be replaced. The final decision to replace the Vanguard-class submarines with Successors will be made in 2016.

Point of Order

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

13:01

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning the Government published a report on the Home Office website on the impact of migrants on British jobs. Its publication had been delayed for some time, and it was then published at a time when the House was considering the very serious issue of the Ellison review. I think that the House should have been afforded an opportunity to consider the report on immigration, and I seek your guidance on how that could be best achieved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is a matter for the Government rather than the Chair. We have had two statements today. However, the hon. Lady has put her point on the record, and I am sure that people will respond to it accordingly.

Future Army 2020

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, it may be helpful to the House if I explain again, briefly, the new procedure to which it agreed last year. Essentially, the pattern is the same as for a ministerial statement. The right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) will speak for up to 10 minutes—obviously he is not obliged to take all that time, unless he considers it necessary—after which I will call Members who rise to put questions to the right hon. Gentleman, and will call him to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Their interventions should be questions, and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part if they feel so inclined.

13:03

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con) (Select Committee Statement)]

There is little time available to us, so I shall cut my remarks to the bone in order to allow other Members to ask questions about the Defence Committee’s report, “Future Army 2020”—a report which speaks for itself.

We welcome many aspects of the changes that are being introduced by the Ministry of Defence. We welcome the increased spending on the reserves, the fact that reservists will have more training days, and the fact that they will work more closely with the regulars. We welcome the Government’s commitment to report annually on the state of the reserve forces, although our report calls on the Government to go further. All those measures will help to tie the armed forces into the public that they defend, and to reduce what we describe as the disconnect between the armed forces and the public.

However, we also have real concerns. We are concerned about the fact that the radical reduction of the Regular Army to 82,500 was simply announced to the Chief of the General Staff, without consultation on whether that was the right figure to address the threats we face, without testing or experimentation, and without being referred to the National Security Council, although it amounted to a reduction of 12,000 personnel and although the figure of 94,500 appeared in the strategic defence and security review as recently as 2010. It was a figure set purely on the basis of the finances that were available, rather than through any reiterative process of negotiation.

We are concerned about recruitment to both the regulars and the reservists. A career in the armed forces is a fantastically valuable and enjoyable one—as usual, I declare my interest: my eldest daughter is a lieutenant in the reserves—and people should not hold back from applying for that wonderful career. However, recruitment has not gone as well as it should have, partly because of failings in the Army’s own processes, partly because of IT failures, and partly because of the transfer of the role to Capita.

We are also concerned about the fact that the regulars are being made redundant before the reservists have been recruited. We understand the efforts that everyone is making to put the recruiting difficulties right, and I hear that things are turning around, but turn around they must. As we say in the report, we face the possibility that the Army will be short of personnel in key supporting capabilities.

Army 2020 presents a radical vision of the future role and structure of the Army. The Government have said it has to work, as there is no plan B. That is the challenge that confronts the Ministry of Defence and the Army. We congratulate the new Chief of the General Staff on his appointment; he has a challenging time ahead. We thank the outgoing Chief of the General Staff for his fantastic work and service over many years. And we commend the report to the House.

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

The Committee has produced a considered report, in whose formation I was privileged to be involved at a very late stage. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is a genuine risk that service numbers may fall so low as to affect our ability to sustain a force which the country needs to retain an expeditionary capability to intervene when necessary, unless there is a longer-term strategic rethink of the way in which we fund defence activities?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I do consider that there is that risk, and I consider that it is a twofold risk. There is the risk that already exists because of the recruiting issues about which we have expressed concern, but there is an even greater risk of further raids on the defence budget in the future. I personally believe that the defence budget should increase, but in any event we must guard against both those risks.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and I visited the Army recruiting and training centre together. Does he agree that it is truly astonishing that it is only since the arrival of the new director general, Major General Chris Tickell, that really obvious things—such as data protection for medicals, returning some of the focus on recruitment to potential recruits and, above all, sorting out the software—are at last being dealt with for the purposes of both regular and reserve recruiting?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I am far too old to be astonished by anything, but I will say that many such issues came to light, and were dealt with, only as a result of my hon. Friend’s assiduity and fantastic work.

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

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their report. Does he think that it confirms what many of us have been saying for a long time, namely that Army 2020 is being driven by financial considerations? The most worrying part of the report that I read was the part that revealed that the permanent secretary to the MOD, rather than the head of the Army, had set the Army numbers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that further redundancies in the regular forces should be paused until the recruitment problems have been sorted out?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s final question, I would say that we may be too late for that, because the recruitment notices have probably already been delivered. However, it is worrying that the 82,500 figure does not appear to have been subjected to any tests or experiments to establish whether it adequately addressed the threats that the country faces. As I said in my brief statement, I think it should have been a reiterative process. Obviously, there is a financial envelope within which we all have to work. Whether that is large enough rather depends on the threats we face.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I would like to place on record my appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman, who steps down as Chairman of the Defence Committee shortly. Does he agree that as the final five or six years of this decade unfold, if circumstances require it—notwithstanding the fact that civil servants determined the size of the Army—the Government should step in and increase recruitment so that the country gets the Army it should have?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman, who also does assiduous work on the Defence Committee. It should not be civil servants who determine the size of the Army; it should be this House that determines the size of the Army—it should be Ministers. Ministers are, of course, in overall control, but these are issues that should be discussed by the House of Commons on a regular basis and determined by Ministers.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

According to Ministry of Defence figures, there is a shortfall in jobs across the military. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of our report’s most alarming findings was the number of vacancies in specialist trades, where jobs are being cut and the right personnel are not being recruited? The Army had the equivalent of 8,000 specialist vacancies it could not recruit for.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I agree with the hon. Lady, who serves so wonderfully on the Select Committee. These issues are brought out clearly in the report. She also referred to the matter in the estimates debate on Tuesday. There are real shortages in relation to cyber-reserves. We must build up those specialist areas to guard against the threats this country faces.

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

The figures announced in Army 2020 are significantly different from those predicted in the strategic defence and security review in 2015. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great value of this strong report is not necessarily with regard to the past, because all those redundancies have happened, but with regard to the future? Looking forward to the next SDSR, does he agree that it is vital that if the SDSR is to have any value whatever it must become binding for the subsequent five years?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend, who also serves on the Defence Committee, makes, as always, a very good point. It is a matter not of astonishment, because I am not astonished about anything, but of surprise that the National Security Council has not already been brought into this process. It needs to be brought into the next process on a regular basis.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Current events in Ukraine and the continuing need for our country to persuade our allies in Europe to spend more on defence make me believe the Government should revisit the target they have set of a regular Army of 82,500. Has the Defence Committee looked at the feasibility of a Government revising the figure if they think there is a political need to do so?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

In our report the Defence Committee calls on the Government to set out how they would rapidly rebuild the regulars as well as building on the reservists. It is difficult enough as it is to recruit into the regulars and the reservists, but regeneration of that capability is important, and the Government must address that.

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

The report correctly highlights the real possibility of capability gaps, along with the fact that the plans to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists were borne of financial necessity rather than strategic design. Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the prospect of rising costs leading to false economies, such as the fact that it costs more to deploy reservists than regulars? Although this cost may have been offloaded on to the Treasury, it could still be a cost borne by taxpayers. The cost may be too much and certainly more than originally envisaged given that the plans come out of a need to make savings. The National Audit Office is also looking into the matter on behalf of taxpayers.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We say in the report:

“We note that Reservists are cheaper to employ so long as they are not called up. This will only prove to be a cost saving so long as future governments are not required to undertake operations. This will need to be closely monitored.”

I hope—indeed, I am sure—that the Government will do exactly that.

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

The report is about Army 2020. It talks about retaining the regimental structure but building an adaptive and reactive force with an integrated reserve. There is money for that until 2019, but there will be a defence and security review in 2015-16. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the resources and the integration quality, not the changes to the structure that have been outlined, will need to be re-examined at that time?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

The hon. Gentleman, who has been on the Defence Committee since, I think, 2003, and who knows more about it than any of us, is quite right. He will raise his points in the next Defence Committee inquiry into Future Force 2020, which will tie together all these issues in the reports that the Committee does to build up to the next defence and security review.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next SDSR should look at the fighting power of the Army, possibly also looking at the concept of critical mass as part of the SDSR?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend is right. The fighting power of the Army seems to have been less used than we would like by the MOD both as a concept and in its language in recent years. Fighting power involves the conceptual component—the thought process—the moral component, which is the ability to get people to fight, and the physical component, or the means to fight. We call on the MOD to produce a regular report on that so that we can understand how well defended the country actually is.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Committee on producing what is, I must say, really rather a disturbing report, certainly from my perspective. He talks about Army 2020 as a radical vision, but I am still not quite clear whether he believes it is radically good or radically bad. The report says that the Committee members have “considerable doubts” as to whether Army 2020

“will meet the needs of the UK’s national security.”

I cannot think of anything more serious than that.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Well, it is radical in that it goes to the root of what the Army is about. It changes the entire configuration of the Army from a predominantly—hugely so—regular Army with a very small proportion of reservists, to an Army of 82,500 regulars and 30,000 reservists. That is certainly radical. I think certain things really work well, but there are other things which are not working so well about which we have real concerns. I have said that and we have made that point in the report.

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

I certainly look forward to the Government response to this report. Much of it focuses on the rebalancing of the regular and reservist ratio, and I should declare an interest as a reservist myself. Many reservists currently fail to secure their bounty or credits for promotion because they miss their annual camp. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new ambitious reservist recruitment targets, as spelled out on page 38 of his report, are more likely to be met if the Army is more flexible in allowing a series of four-day commitments to be completed throughout the year for those who are unable—for work or family reasons—to make the fixed dates of an annual eight to 14-day camp?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend knows far more about it than I do. I am sure he is right. I am sure the answer is in the report somewhere, but I cannot put my finger on exactly where.

Backbench Business

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

Security of Women in Afghanistan

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask Members to speak for the usual 10 to 15 minutes. There will be time pressure on the next debate, so it would be helpful if people could be brief, as I do not wish to introduce a time limit. However, I will do so if pushed.

13:19

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises, ahead of critical presidential elections in April 2014, the essential contribution of Afghan human rights defenders to building peace and security in their country; further recognises the extreme challenges, including violent attacks and killings, that they face as a result of their peaceful work; believes that sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without women’s full participation; and encourages the UK Government to improve its support and protection for women human rights defenders in Afghanistan.

I am sure that all hon. Members would like to take this opportunity to offer their sympathy to the family and friends of the soldier who died yesterday at Camp Bastion, bringing to 448 the number of British personnel who have died while serving in Afghanistan.

I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate on the security of women in Afghanistan.

Many people will remember 11 September 2001. I remember that I was trying to get a survival suit on while waiting for a helicopter to bring me back from a visit to an offshore platform when the offshore installation manager came to us and said, “There’s been an aircraft crash in New York; I’ll put it on the telly.” When we got off the helicopter at Aberdeen airport, we saw on the news that there had been another crash. It was obviously not an accident; it was a serious situation. That event has linked the mountains of Afghanistan and the living rooms of the UK and tied our two countries together since 2001. I pay tribute to the troops and to the staff of the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the non-governmental organisations for all the work that they have done in Afghanistan since then to try to establish a more stable and secure situation for that country and for the wider world.

On a visit to Afghanistan in 2007, while I was serving on the International Development Select Committee, I saw at first hand some of the challenges involved, and some of the achievements, especially those relating to the role of women in society. It was particularly memorable and moving to visit a classroom of girls, and I remember sitting next to a girl who enthusiastically showed me the homework that she had taken from her school bag. Those girls were able to engage in the learning process again. In the context of the transition in Afghanistan, it is telling that on the successor Committee’s more recent visit to the same school, it was felt inappropriate that Committee members should visit the classroom where the girls were. That might be a measure of the hardening of attitudes towards women that is beginning to cause concern.

We also saw a project for start-up businesses, and it was pointed out to us that loans to women were considered far more secure than loans to men, because the women entrepreneurs repaid their loans far more effectively than the men. There was a great deal of enthusiasm for the range of businesses that could support the Afghan economy. We also visited a maternity hospital in Lashkar Gah, where DFID had built accommodation for the training of midwives. The development of women’s health and the support for engaging with women was recognised as an important contribution.

This debate is timely because international women’s day is coming up at the weekend. The security situation in Afghanistan is changing with the withdrawal of international security assistance force troops, the handover to Afghan security forces and the election of a new President in April. Progress has been made since 2001, but it has been fragile.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I travelled to Afghanistan with the hon. Gentleman on that Select Committee visit in 2007. When our troops come back from Afghanistan and no longer have a security role in the country, we will not be able to enforce the rights of women in the way that we have to some extent been able to do while our troops have been in the country. The hon. Gentleman has been explaining how much DFID has achieved in changing the prospects of women through its aid programme. Does he agree that that aid programme should be maintained and should have a footprint across the whole of the country, rather than just being based in the capital, Kabul?

[Sir Robert Smith]

I certainly recognise the crucial importance of the aid programme in building on what has been achieved to date. I also recognise that we need to engage with the whole of Afghanistan to get the messages across.

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

I commend my hon. Friend for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group on Afghanistan. He talks about the challenges for the whole of Afghanistan. Will he join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on the work that the Department has done to promote the interests of women? I have visited the country a number of times, and things have changed—albeit slowly—in the areas of education, health and access to justice. Does my hon. Friend also agree, however, that there are too many disparate agendas? DFID does excellent work, but it often takes place separately from that done by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the non-governmental organisations operating there. Given that we have been in Afghanistan for more than a decade, do we perhaps need greater co-ordination to achieve the success that we wish to see?

[Sir Robert Smith]

Effective co-ordination among all the agencies involved is an important part of maximising the benefit and working together. The conference in London in November could provide an opportunity to focus the minds of all those agencies on adopting a co-ordinated approach.

I want to put on record the names of some of the victims of the attacks on women that have taken place in Afghanistan. Islam Bibi, a senior policewoman from Helmand province, was murdered last July. A few months later, another senior policewoman from Helmand, Lieutenant Negar, was also murdered. Parliamentarian Rooh Gul survived an attack in which her driver and eight-year-old daughter were killed in August. Parliamentarian Fariba Kakar was kidnapped by insurgents and held for ransom before, fortunately, being released in September. Sushmita Banerjee, a well-known author who had written about life under the Taliban, was dragged out of her home and shot 15 times in September. December 2013 was a deadly month for Afghan women. A policewoman, Masooma, from Nimruz was shot on 5 December, and on 19 December a policewoman and a pregnant teacher were found hanged in Uruzgan. In January 2014, Yalda Waziri, a senior government official in Herat, was murdered by unknown attackers who shot her from a motorbike. High-profile attacks such as those get into the news, but many more victims in everyday life go under the radar. Nevertheless, we should be concerned about them, too.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the problems that women human rights defenders across Afghanistan are facing? Many of them are continuing to try to work and travel, but they are finding it increasingly difficult, and their lives and their families are under constant threat. That shows the risk that they will be under once we finally withdraw from the country.

[Sir Robert Smith]

Yes, the lack of security presents a huge challenge for human rights defenders. That makes it even more important to have in place as effective a strategy as possible among the agencies that will continue to work in Afghanistan.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Having been involved with human rights in the field in Bosnia, and having heard my hon. Friend’s litany of appalling crimes against women, I am really concerned about how once we have gone we will be able to reduce those numbers. It will have to be done by the security forces of Afghanistan, and that is a huge commitment. I am not quite sure how we can help.

[Sir Robert Smith]

We can help by maintaining our engagement in Afghanistan through DFID and the Foreign Office and through NGOs. We can also help by highlighting our values and the importance of women to society there, and by engaging in debate with Afghanistan. But yes, the security is going to be delivered by the Afghan forces.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

This is an incredibly important debate. Saferworld recently found a direct correlation between increased insecurity and violence against women and decreasing public participation among women. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Afghan women are not just victims and that the incredibly brave women who remain involved in public life deserve our support and our wholehearted protection, wherever we can give it? That is one key way in which we can show our support and make a difference to women in Afghanistan.

[Sir Robert Smith]

We get the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to meet some of those brave women on delegations from the Afghan Parliament. They reinforce the case that, from the perspective of women in Afghanistan, the engagement of ISAF has been seen as supportive and important.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in also paying tribute to those women who are participating directly in the security of Afghanistan—the women who, often in the face of tremendous opposition, are training to be police officers, members of the army or members of special forces? The House may be surprised to learn about the latter group; we too frequently use the word “trailblazer”, but they really are trailblazers.

[Sir Robert Smith]

Yes, the bravery such women show is immensely inspiring. Again, it shows the need for us to continue to focus on Afghanistan, even though our troops are no longer there, bringing it to our news and engaging the public. We need to make sure we build as much as we can on what has been achieved to date.

One suggestion from Amnesty International is to have a country-specific plan on human rights defenders, which could ensure that training and awareness-raising occurs with mission staff on gender considerations, and on the particular challenges facing those who work to promote human rights and those who face risk because of their work; to prioritise gendered approaches to the support and protection of HRDs; to appoint a liaison officer to act as focal point for HRDs for information exchange and case support; to explore with civil society organisations and HRDs—this depends on security considerations—safe opportunities to support local events; and to outline how and what support protection would be delivered in conjunction with, or through, the European Union and United Nations.

[Mrs Moon]

During the Defence Committee’s last visit to Afghanistan we met women at the forefront of trying to change the society. I turned to the leader of the women we were meeting and said, “In the time leading up to our departure, what is the most important thing we could provide to you?” Surprisingly, her response was, “Artillery.” She was saying, “Unless we know we are going to be able to defend ourselves against the Taliban and reach a point where we can build a society outside the Taliban’s horrific views on women, nothing will change in Afghanistan.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I make the point again that long interventions are not helpful, either to this debate or the one afterwards? Let us try to contain them, especially where a Member has already had one go.

[Sir Robert Smith]

That lady’s message is a very important one about bringing support and resources to the Afghan security forces to make sure that they can maintain the security situation. The engagement with human rights defenders is an important part of ensuring that the messages get through about the important role of women. We need to engage with the men of Afghanistan about the fact that where a society does not use half its population, its economic potential is not being achieved, and that if a society does not engage with the next generation of women in education, it is failing to achieve its potential. That will be a major cultural challenge.

The Government will be hosting a summit in November 2014 where they could focus on the needs of women by ensuring that women’s representation at that summit is substantial; by supporting human rights defenders to travel to take part in the summit; by establishing formal processes of consultation with Afghan women and women human rights defenders in advance of the summit, to ensure their input into its format and content, and to ensure that women who take part receive protection from retaliation and intimidation; and by working to build on the Tokyo commitments.

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

rose—

[Sir Robert Smith]

Time is beginning to run short, but I will take one more intervention.

[Mr Gray]

The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely interesting and thoughtful speech, but will he give consideration to one other thing? Although it is important that we should provide safety for these human rights defenders and high-profile women in Afghanistan, the good old Chinese saying that women hold up half the sky is particularly true in Afghanistan, which is a matriarchal society. Does he agree that one of the most important things to do is put in place defence strategies to keep the Taliban under control once we have left, so that women who run the households in Afghanistan can be allowed to do so?

[Sir Robert Smith]

Yes, the security situation is crucial, because a resurgence of the Taliban will start to knock back all the achievements made; we will be back to square one and all the risks that evolve from that scenario will be back to haunt us. It is crucial that we maintain our engagement.

Will the Secretary of State say what assessment her Department has made of the different programmes to support women—which have and which have not been successful—so that in the future we can focus on those that have had achievements? As I said, 2001 brought our two countries together, and progress has been made, but it is fragile and we must not turn our backs now when handing over security to the Afghan Government. I urge the House to support this motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am introducing an eight-minute limit.

13:36

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also wish to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. I speak whenever I can in this House on the issues of education and women, and today I want to bring those issues together in this debate on the security situation of women in Afghanistan. I do so for a number of reasons, one of which is that when I became an MP in May 2010, the very first thing—and I mean the very first thing—I had to do officially was attend the funeral of Daryn Roy, a young man who was born and brought up in Dipton in my constituency and who died in Camp Bastion in Afghanistan right at the end of April 2010. When I attended his funeral, I found that his parents took great comfort from the fact that he had told them that he was fighting in Afghanistan on behalf of not only Britain, but the people of Afghanistan and that he and his colleagues were there not only to deal with terrorists and remove them from that sorry land, but to create a land in which education could be brought to children—all children, both girls and boys. He had taken great pride in the fact that he and his colleagues were protecting women from the worst excesses of the Taliban.

As we know, the lives of women in Afghanistan have never been easy, but under the spiritual leader Mullah Omar the Taliban brought a whole new level of misery and terror to the lives of many, particularly women. Women were not allowed to work outside the home; and they were not allowed to leave their home unless accompanied by a male relative. Women who could not afford a burqa or who did not have a living male relative were, in effect, housebound for four years. Education for women and girls was banned by the Taliban, and as most of the teachers in Afghanistan were women, the education of boys and girls suffered. Throughout that time, brave women teachers continued secretly to teach young girls, and some boys, in their homes. Information about secret schools was spread by word of mouth, from woman to woman. Through the generosity and bravery of these women teachers, some young girls did continue to receive an education.

The international invasion and the election of President Karzai’s Government did lead to a relaxation of some restrictions on women, but women’s lives continued to be difficult. His Government endorsed a code of conduct that continued to require women to be accompanied by a male relative when travelling and not to mingle with strange men—anyone outside the family—in places such as schools, markets and offices. Although that did not amount to a ban, it made work and life very difficult for most women.

We know that Afghanistan continues to be one of the most challenging places in the world to be a woman. More women and girls die in pregnancy there than almost anywhere else in the world. Nine out of 10 women cannot read or write. One in 10 children dies before their fifth birthday. The life expectancy of a woman in Afghanistan is 44 years of age, one of the lowest in the world. More than 50% of Afghan women are married or engaged by the age of 10; 60% are married by the age of 16; 80% of marriages are either forced or arranged; and violence against women is endemic.

There are 1.5 million widows in Afghanistan, one of the highest proportions in the world, 94% of whom are illiterate. The average age of a widow is 35. Widows without male relatives prepared to support them have few options, and most are forced to beg or are forced into prostitution.

Education for women has improved since 2001, but still, in 2011, of the 8 million students in Afghanistan, only 30% of them were women and girls. Things have improved, and education is no longer banned, but the Taliban has continued to conduct a reign of terror against schools. There is a campaign of burning down schools and of killing students and teachers, and the Taliban has been helped in this by its supporters in Pakistan who have banned the delivery of school books and texts to Afghanistan.

Teachers and those running schools endure violent threats from the Taliban on a daily basis. There are attacks on their families and they risk losing their homes and those closest to them, and yet they persevere. They continue to provide essential education to women and girls across the country at great cost to themselves.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am reluctant to interrupt what is a very powerful speech, but does she agree that there is huge concern about the contracts for schools and clinics? The west builds them, but then we do not provide the contracts for the teachers to continue there—certainly after we have left. That applies not only in the southern area, the Pashtun area, where the Taliban operate, but in the north.

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister is listening.

As I was saying, it is because of the teachers—my professional colleagues of whom I am so proud—and others working in women's health, human rights and security that the lot of women in Afghanistan has improved. However, that is now at risk as the time of withdrawal draws close. Most international forces are set to withdraw this year, and, as the deadline draws near, women activists, women teachers and doctors and those working on behalf of women in Afghanistan become increasingly concerned about the future.

I want to give just one small example of what is happening now. We worry about what will happen after we withdraw in 2014, but what is going on now? In 2009, the law on the elimination of violence against women finally criminalised acts of child marriage, rape and other forms of violence against women. Despite that, there was a 27% increase in attacks on women last year in a society where attacks on women usually take place within the family and are rarely reported or challenged. Now a small, seemingly inconsequential change in the criminal law could make domestic violence against women almost impossible to prosecute. The new law proposes that relatives can no longer testify when a woman has been assaulted or raped. Essentially, that means that no one can testify on a woman’s behalf, because in Afghanistan a woman rarely sees anyone outside of the family. Relatives are the only people who would ever be privy to a woman being abused, who would see her afterwards or who could testify on her behalf. The change in the law would mean that women could be beaten and raped without any fear of prosecution for the persecutor.

We are withdrawing from Afghanistan, but we have not gone yet. This Parliament, the British Government and international forces need to tell President Karzai now, firmly and loudly, that this kind of law must be repealed. It is an offence to Afghan women and to women everywhere and it needs to go. This is not what Daryn Roy and the other young men and women from constituencies up and down this country fought and died for. Although I understand the need to withdraw, surely we owe an assurance to our war dead and to those who have been injured and who have fought on our behalf in Afghanistan that they did not fight for nothing and that they leave a lasting legacy that includes a better, safer and educated future for the women and girls of Afghanistan.

13:44

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) for securing this timely debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to happen. I feel privileged to be taking part.

As important as this debate is—and it is very important —we should not overestimate our ability to influence cultural change within Afghanistan just by speaking in this Chamber; the challenge is much bigger than that. Fundamentally, the change will have to come from people within Afghanistan whom we can support.

In January, Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch said:

“Afghan women are all too well aware that international donors are walking away from Afghanistan.”

As the Secretary of State is in her place, I am sure that she will want to make it clear that that is not the case with Britain. Indeed, the longer and deeper our commitment is, and the more that we talk about it, the better we will be able to support those in Afghanistan who are working for change.

Reference has been made to the visit the International Development Committee made to the country in 2007—we also visited it 18 months ago—in which we had a robust meeting with President Karzai. He was challenged on the rights of women. Specifically, we talked about the fact that more than 80% were beaten by their husbands and other male family members, and that those who fled violent relationships were jailed while the perpetrators of the violence had immunity from any sanction.

At the end of the exchange, Mr Karzai said that we had to understand that Afghanistan was a conservative country with its own values. He said that the last ruler who challenged those values was the king who was assassinated in 1929, and Mr Karzai did not want to repeat that example.

In an article in The Guardian last month, Nushin Arbadzadah warned of the challenges. She said that

“the idea that we could empower Afghan women by making them aware of their individual rights was preposterous and bound to fail from the inception. Anyone who has spent even two days in Afghanistan knows that individualism as a concept does not exist there. The idea that we could treat women as a separate entity, legal or political, and disconnected from their family was flawed from the start.”

She said that those who fought for those values were likely to do so perpetually and in isolation. In her conclusion, she said:

“Afghanistan’s patriarchal clans have survived leftist coups and rightwing wars, becoming the only source of stability in a society constantly in turmoil. To dismantle their power would amount to freedom not only for women but also for men. But to reach that end, we need more than the rhetoric of individual rights imported from the other side of the planet.”

That is a sobering article. We feel angry and we state our case, but we must realise what we are up against. Very often, it is women, and not just men, who are oppressing women, and not supporting them when they stand up, which is why I agree with my hon. Friend that the role of men is important too and that we need to be part of it.

[Bob Stewart]

It is not only the role of men that is important, but the men themselves. They are the people who drive the change, and we must put all our efforts into making them understand and be more enlightened, in our way of thinking, towards their women.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

Of course I accept that, but we should not underestimate the challenge. That is why we need to work with local women and women’s groups and accept the way in which they want to achieve change and support them.

Our second report on Afghanistan, which was published 18 months ago, said:

“The treatment of women in Afghanistan after troops pull out in 2014 will be the litmus test of whether we have succeeded in improving the lives of ordinary Afghans over the last ten years.”

We urged the Government to prioritise women in their programmes, especially on education, supporting shelters and providing legal advice. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to give us some insight about how that is being done under the DFID programme.

Like others, we have met articulate women MPs and civil rights campaigners who were fearful that there would be push back on the gains, but were determined to protect and advance the progress that had been made. We all recognise that educating girls and women is an essential part of that.

Everyone knows that Afghanistan has an uncertain future. We do not know what the next Government will look like or who will be President, although the candidates are now lining up. The idea that the whole country will quickly fall back into the arms of the Taliban seems unlikely. Many of the people who suffered under the Taliban have gained under the current situation and will not readily succumb to that again. Furthermore, the Taliban are not a single, coherent entity.

I note that Zalmai Rassoul, one of the frontrunners for the presidency, has chosen a woman as one of his running mates. Habiba Sarabi was the former governor of Bamiyan Province. Some members of the Committee visited the province briefly in 2012. Having suffered at the hands of the Taliban, not only through the destruction of the famous Buddhas but through much more serious infringements of lives and livelihoods, the people of the predominantly Shi’ite Hazara province of Bamiyan clearly told us that they were determined to pursue their own destiny and will at all odds resist any re-incursion by the Taliban. The principal of the university told us that fathers and husbands were actively encouraging their daughters and wives to go to university and that a third of the students there are now female.

I must also say, however, that I and a number of other members of the Committee met a young woman in Kabul. She was a highly educated and very articulate postgraduate, but when I asked her about her personal circumstances she said that she would of course have to marry whoever her brother, who was the head of her household, chose for her. I asked whether her brother would consult her, to which she replied, “How on earth would my brother have any idea what kind of man I want anyway?” I asked what she would do if she did not like that person or if she suffered violence and she said, “I am used to violence; I can accept it.” She is an intelligent, educated and articulate woman, more or less saying that she must succumb to her fate.

We have made progress. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine rightly referred to girls’ education. The front cover of our first report in 2007 was a photograph of girls in school because we thought that was symptomatic of how Afghanistan was changing. My hon. Friend rightly said that 2001 was a moment of destiny, but I think that Afghanistan is a country in which the UK would be engaged regardless of that because it is one of the poorest countries on the planet and because we make a commitment to try to lift people out of absolute poverty. It is a poor country seeking to develop and exactly the kind of country that we want to help.

The Taliban are against development of all kinds, but many Afghans have experienced the benefits that development can bring. They have glimpsed the opportunities and will not, in my view, simply allow themselves to be pushed back. I suggest that our job is to stand by those who seek to move forward on their own terms. We must do everything we can to support those women who are campaigning to secure progress, but we must follow their leadership and not impose our own. They will understand how to make that change better than anything we can do. Although there are absolute rights and values that we stand by, we must accept that change will be brought about by people inside the community who understand how to do it. We must stand by them and say that we are here to help them in any way we can to secure progress.

I am grateful that the Secretary of State is replying to the debate and hope that she will be able to say that we are there to stand by Afghan women for as long as it takes.

13:52

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and I congratulate him on ensuring that the Select Committee on International Development focused on women’s rights in its report. I can do that in all modesty because I was not a member of the Select Committee when it began its inquiry. I was involved in the latter stages, but the first issue I raised, in the first session I attended, was women’s rights and security in Afghanistan. I questioned the former Secretary of State about the effectiveness and scope of what was being done and I give credit to the current Secretary of State for her tenacity and commitment on this issue. We have seen progress and movement.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) on introducing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have it. This might sound slightly strange, but I want to apologise to members of Musselburgh twinning association for no longer being able to join them this evening. I hope they will realise that, as the right hon. Member for Gordon said, it is vital that our voices are heard by women in Afghanistan so that they know that we stand by them and are committed to their safety, security, human rights and right to participate in Afghan society at every level. I hope that the association will think it is worth while my being in the Chamber today.

As Amnesty International has said:

“sustainable security cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without the full participation of women; moreover, for security to be meaningful, it must include security for women”.

As established in UN Security Council resolution 1325, the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure not only that women participate in all peace and security-related processes, but that that is seen as vital to the success of those processes.

Last year the UN reported that the lack of female participation in peace processes was a shortcoming. The establishment of an elite women’s advisory board charged with ensuring women’s participation in the peace process in Afghanistan is undermined by the limited number of women—just nine out of 70—on the High Peace Council. That is simply not good enough.

The UK Government have said that they are committed, as they are, to ensuring that the progress achieved on rights is safeguarded. As international partners withdraw from Afghanistan, however, this is a worrying year for many women. As other Members have said, it is now increasingly for the Afghans to safeguard progress and hold their Government to account for their record on human and women’s rights.

Progress has been made in Afghanistan by the Afghans for the Afghans, and I pay tribute to some of the advances we have seen. In 2003 the Afghan Government ratified the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women; in 2004 the new constitution outlawed discrimination and enshrined equal rights for women and men; in 2008 the national action plan for women of Afghanistan was launched; and in 2009 the elimination of violence against women law was adopted. About 20 women’s shelters have been established, which is a start, and they are accommodating about 350 women. Some 25% of Government jobs are filled by women, 2.7 million girls were enrolled in Afghan schools in 2011-12 compared with fewer than 10,000 in 2001, and 28% of MPs are women, a record that some in this House should seek to emulate.

It is essential that Afghan women human rights defenders, including those in civil society, public servants and parliamentarians, should be able to continue their work and make further progress. I want to be clear that that progress remains under threat and the situation in Afghanistan appears precarious, with women’s rights threatened. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) spoke about article 26 and the threat it poses to prosecutions for domestic violence. A recent report from Human Rights Watch raises concerns about the number of convictions for assaults on all sorts on women, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address the fact that they are particularly prevalent in underdeveloped and remote regions of the country.

We have heard about the cases of prominent women who have been attacked but, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said, hidden behind those are attacks on ordinary Afghan women. I want to highlight a few of my concerns. Last year, the lower house of the Afghan Parliament passed a revision of the country’s electoral law, deleting a guarantee that at least 25% of seats in each of the 34 provincial councils should be for female candidates. Thanks to an intervention from the upper house, that has been set at 20%. Last May, conservative MPs called for the repeal of the 2009 law on the elimination of violence against women, focusing on the minimum marriage age, the abolition of shelters and criminal penalties for rape.

There has been almost exclusive impunity for high-profile attacks, but I want to highlight the case of one woman, Sahar Gul, who has been let down by the Government in Afghanistan. Three family members were convicted of the starvation and torture of that teenager, and they have served only a year of their 10-year sentence. In 2011, Sahar’s stepbrother sold her to be married for $5,000. She was about 13 at the time and soon after the marriage her in-laws attempted to force her into prostitution. When she resisted, they locked her in the basement, pulled out her fingernails and burned her. It is simply not good enough that the perpetrators should be released after just a year.

A Ministry of Justice working group has actually assisted in drafting a law that would have reinstated public execution by stoning for the crime of adultery. Too many women and girls are in prison or juvenile detention centres for what are called “moral crimes”. Women are having to suffer the indignity and pain of vaginal examinations to establish whether they are virgins.

I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State’s speech. The initiative from the Foreign Secretary to try to prevent violence against women is welcome, but the real way to prevent it is by changing these societies. I am incredibly lucky to have three grandsons and I hope for a granddaughter one day, but if I were living in Afghanistan I would not be hoping for a granddaughter.

13:59

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) on introducing the debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss this matter. As the House knows, for two years I had the privilege of being the Minister responsible for Afghanistan in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I pay tribute to all those I worked with at the time who were involved with Afghanistan. The House rightly pays tribute regularly to our armed forces for the extraordinary work they do, but it is also important to remember the contribution made by civilians from this country who go out to Afghanistan to engage locally in some of the many complex issues that have been mentioned and to work with different international organisations. I also want to pay tribute to experienced parliamentarians. Once again this debate is enlightened by colleagues who have been to Afghanistan and met those engaged in some of the difficulties we are talking about.

When I become the Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, I was clear from the beginning that the development of women in society and the importance of maintaining the progress that had been made was central to many organisations that are campaigning for, and worried about, the position of women. I pay tribute to Amnesty and other organisations that have done so much work in that respect, but they were always pushing at an open door. I want to make it clear to the House how central the role of women in Afghanistan was to the development of policy, within both the FCO and DFID, right through the period when I was involved and beyond.

When the Foreign Secretary published the United Kingdom’s national action plan in response to UN Security Council resolution 1325 in relation to the development of societies post conflict, he said:

“No lasting peace can be achieved after conflict unless the needs of women are met—not only justice for the victims of crimes of war, but their active involvement in creating a society in which their rights are respected and their voices are heard.”

I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary, who has been quite remarkable—I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) for what she said about this—in his dedication to the rights of women and his concern about the use of conflict to damage women. He has been quite exceptional in that regard. I know from personal experience how much he was concerned about Afghanistan and how much support he gave me and others in our work.

That there has been progress in Afghanistan since 2001 is clear—it has been documented by other Members, so I will not detain the House long on this—with regard to health, education, justice and participation. Women have seen their circumstances improve. Some 3 million girls are now in education and there are now women teachers, whereas there were not before. To some extent, that helps to contradict the sense, which some portray, that it is a society that it is impossible to change. If it were impossible for it to change, those brave women would not have come forward, which is another reason why they deserve support.

We understand very well that there are different cultures in different societies, but we have a culture too. Our culture and our tradition in this country is to stand up for what we think is right and to say very clearly, even though value judgments are involved, when we think something is wrong. The subjugation and terrorisation of women is wrong. We know, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) said, that that cannot be done from the Chamber of a Parliament thousands of miles away. It needs to be done by working with those on the ground. Again, the extraordinary work that has been done in capacity building and support over recent years has, I believe, made a significant difference and will continue to do so.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that we should also pay tribute to voluntary organisations such as Afghan Connection, which is on the ground in areas such as north-east Afghanistan and putting in place education and training for teachers?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I could name a number of different organisations—I will mention one in a moment. Men and women are going out from this country to do extraordinary work with people in Afghanistan and to support the bravery of women and others there who are working for change.

I remember on my first visit to Afghanistan meeting a group of women civil society activists and being told straightforwardly, “If you ask women in our society whether life has changed for the better since 2001, between 60% and 70% will say yes. But if you ask how many are afraid for the future, 99% will say yes.” The constant refrain, particularly as we got closer to naming a date when the United Kingdom’s armed forces would withdraw—2014—was, “Are you all going? Are the lights going out?” I remember being very committed to saying, on behalf of the Government, “Absolutely not. People are staying and the commitment to Afghanistan will remain.”

It is very important to recognise that that is done in conjunction and co-operation with brave individuals who are there. I could name many, but let me refer to just two or three in the short time available. Habiba Sarabi, who was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, is a remarkable woman who made her name working on women’s literacy, before joining the Government in 2004 after the Taliban had gone. She is now the governor of Bamiyan province. Sometimes the media can present the image that it is all about Helmand, but it is not. There are places where things are happening and women are engaged in society and want to remain engaged. She is a remarkable woman.

Fawzia Koofi, a member of Parliament whom I have met on more than one occasion, is an outstandingly brave woman. When she was a baby, her mother left her outside to die in the Afghan sun because she did not want another daughter in the house. She was rescued after a few hours, burnt almost to a cinder. From that experience she developed an extraordinary attitude to life and a determination to fight for the rights of women. She was recently interviewed and said a few things—this follows what other Members have said—about the current difficulties. She said:

“It’s becoming harder to work on women’s issues. Conservative colleagues are more confident to open their mouths… But there is more awareness among women to stand by themselves and defend their rights… You cannot talk about women’s education, women’s economic empowerment and social empowerment without their political participation. So for any young woman I would encourage them to have the courage to put herself forward.”

With examples like Fawzia to follow, young women can do just that.

I want to mention two individuals from the United Kingdom. The first is Linda Norgrove. I was involved in the hostage crisis when Linda was kidnapped. She subsequently died in an attempt to free her in October 2010. I attended her funeral and remember what a remarkable occasion it was, as people remembered what she had done. She worked with widows, in particular, in eastern Afghanistan. Her parents have set up a foundation in her memory, another one of those organisations that work to remember a remarkable person from this country who lost their life because of their commitment to the women of Afghanistan. She managed a team of some 500 staff who moved from district to district in eastern Afghanistan, working with communities to implement projects in conjunction with local people. That reinforces the point that it is not a question of imposing values from outside; it is about working with others there who want to make a success of things. The second individual I will mention from the United Kingdom is my noble Friend Baroness Hodgson, who has given a lot of time and effort in Afghanistan, and at great personal cost and risk to herself.

Finally, I want to mention Hillary Clinton. I remember my early meetings with Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State. It was clear that her commitment to the advancement of women was no political gesture, but firm and determined. We were constantly being asked how we would put into practice what we believed about the future of women in Afghanistan, so she made sure that it was in the Bonn declaration in Tokyo. Her commitment has been remarkable.

As has been said, we know that there are limits to what we can do. Ultimately, it will have to be Afghanistan that enforces what we believe. But our constant engagement, our determination not to leave people alone, the fact that we will continue to talk about it here and the fact that men and women from the United Kingdom will continue to go to Afghanistan to support the people there will be the clearest demonstration we can give that, although things are written in treaties, we will follow them ourselves. We will do all we can to support the brave women who are already working in that country. There is much to achieve, but we have achieved a lot. I am deeply grateful to colleagues for the way in which they have worked on this over a number of years. We owe it to the people of Afghanistan, and to all those from the United Kingdom who have lost their lives there, to work with others for a better future, which they deserve and have been richly working towards.

14:10

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who was a hugely impressive Minister during his time in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He set out clearly the Government’s policy on and support for freedom and justice internationally. It is a genuine pleasure to follow his important comments.

This is an important debate, not only as a precursor to international women’s day, but because it is happening on world book day, given the importance we place on access to information and education in transforming society and improving conditions for women abroad.

I do not want to repeat too much of what has been said but, as we are aware, the Afghan constitution affords equal protection to men and women. However, there has been growing controversy recently about the role of Afghan women in society. At 28% of members, the representation of women in the Afghan Parliament exceeds the level in this House. Although Afghanistan has quotas and we do not, we take proactive action to encourage young women to get involved in Parliament, and young women from our constituencies are visiting Parliament today and we hope that that will encourage them to take this Parliament seriously.

Many women who have stepped forward into politics in Afghanistan find themselves at the forefront of abuse and attacks, and although there has been progress, it is important to maintain it. According to the Afghan independent human rights commission, attacks on women and human rights defenders are increasing and include attacks on parliamentarians, the murder of female police officers, the targeting of critics of the Taliban, and the targeting of their families. Their male relatives—their sons, their fathers and their brothers—are often targeted as a way of silencing women who want to stand up and have a voice.

The right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) was correct when he said that if we want to transform society in Afghanistan the issue is not just about speaking to women there. Unless women have the support and encouragement of the men around them and wider society, it will be incredibly difficult for them to continue the change that is happening.

Honour killings and punishments for breaking traditional Taliban rules of society are still widespread. According to the United Nations, 87.2% of Afghan women and girls have experienced some form of violence or abuse. The UN described that as a pandemic and it is increasingly disturbing when we consider that many women will be totally opposed to reporting abuse, even if it puts their life in danger, because of fear of the consequences of speaking out about their situation.

There has been progress, and hon. Members have referred to the passage of the law on the elimination of violence against women in 2009, which, for the first time, made rape a crime, and outlawed forced marriage, as well as physical and verbal abuse. However, that must be set against the recent row-back to which the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) referred. Only a few weeks ago, President Karzai had to make last-minute blocks to legislation that would have stopped relatives testifying against one another and would have prevented almost all prosecutions for domestic violence and rape. In the last year alone, Parliament has blocked a law to curb violence against women, and cut the quota for women on provincial councils. The justice Ministry has floated a proposal to bring back stoning as a punishment for adultery.

There has been progress, but it would be wrong for us to be complacent about the amount of work that still needs to be done to change attitudes and to secure women’s position. That comes against the backdrop of the political situation, which is extremely vulnerable. The elections to choose the successor to President Hamid Karzai and the fear that many candidates have links to the Taliban or at least share their ultra-conservative views on societal norms in Afghanistan is a threat to women’s progress.

The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire paid tribute to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the Department for International Development for their work. I add my support and thanks for their work when I have corresponded with them on these issues over the years. They have recognised the importance of women in post-conflict peace building. Societies in which women are safe, empowered to exercise their rights and can move their communities forward are more prosperous and stable as a result. Sustainable security cannot be achieved in Afghanistan or elsewhere unless we ensure the full participation of women at all levels of society, including in building that peace.

A country where women cannot realise their full rights and experience violence and attacks, both domestically and in the public sphere, almost with impunity, is not a peaceful or secure country; nor can the careful and delicate work that will be required to deal with the legacy of conflict be successful unless women are actively involved. The UK Government have a responsibility under UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security to ensure that women’s participation in all peace and security-related processes is not only assured but is seen as vital to the success of those processes.

I am always reluctant to cite Northern Ireland experience, particularly in a context such as this where the differences are immense and clearly seen. Although our situation is not comparable, some lessons can be learned. We are aware as a society of the important role played by women during the conflict and the post-conflict period. It is important to learn those lessons. Only this week, the deputy director of Relatives For Justice in Northern Ireland, Andrée Murphy, in a blog on a site called Vixens with Convictions, talked about the need for a gendered approach to peace building in Northern Ireland.

The experience of women in conflict is often distinctly different from that of their male counterparts. Many women find that their views have not been mainstreamed within the peace process and face challenges in post-conflict society when politics moves on and often leaves them behind. Many are affected by the lack of access to justice and many are dealing with the financial consequences of having lost the main breadwinner in their families. Lessons can be learned about how to go forward because without women’s participation in the Afghanistan process, we will face significant challenges in creating stability.

When western troops withdraw, taking with them money and attention, we must think of the public back home. It is hugely important that we as a Parliament do not lose our attention and focus, so I am encouraged that DFID has continued to see this as an important part of its work among some of the poorest people in the world.

Human Rights Watch’s 2013 annual report said:

“With international interest in Afghanistan rapidly waning, opponents of women’s rights seized the opportunity to begin rolling back the progress made since the end of Taliban rule.”

We cannot allow that important progress to be eroded or diminished. Too much has been lost for that to be the case. The UK Government have been hugely supportive of the democratic process in Afghanistan and have given financial support to initiatives aimed at increasing female participation in politics there. We must work with the international community to ensure that there is a specific country plan to allow that work to be taken forward and to allow those brave women who step forward in Afghanistan to be assured of our full support.

14:17

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and the Backbench Business Committee on granting this timely debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development for her ongoing commitment to the rights of women and girls. As chair of the all-party group on women, peace and security, I have had the opportunity over the years to meet many female Afghan parliamentarians and civil society campaigners to discuss their hopes, but mainly fears, for the future of Afghanistan.

My first point is that those women whom I have met have not just been victims. They have not even primarily been victims. They have been the most inspiring agents for change. One woman, whom I will not name for her own protection, started up a television show, “Niqab”, which sought to combat the traditional taboo on talking openly about domestic abuse by allowing women victims of domestic abuse to sit in a television show, properly covered, and openly talk about it. That led to increased reporting and openness about domestic abuse in Afghan society. Those are practical steps by Afghan women to improve women’s rights in Afghanistan, but they do so in the face of the most extraordinary challenge.

As has been said, 87% of women have experienced violence against them. Reported cases of violence against women increased by 28% between 2012 and 2013 and, as was said in the opening speech, there have been nine high-profile victims of assassination in the last six months, but we know that many more victims have not reached the headlines, especially victims in education and health care.

We must acknowledge that there have been gains since 2001. The constitution now grants equal rights to women, and more girls are in school in Afghanistan than ever before in its history. More than a quarter of Afghanistan’s parliamentarians are female, and of course the elimination of violence against women Act criminalised rape in 2009. However, these gains are fragile, and they are set against a rock-bottom base and a backdrop of poverty, injustice, early enforced marriage, and appalling violence that includes some of the most terrible sexual violence that can be imagined. In practice, for the majority of Afghan women, equality must still seem a lifetime away.

The statistics can seem overwhelming—like a mountain to climb which, with the drawdown approaching ever faster, is out of reach for us. I am reminded of the man who drowned in two inches of water. Statistics can be misleading, because there are practical steps that we can take. If the extraordinary men and women I have met, who are willing to pursue women’s rights in the face of the most appalling abuses, are not willing to give up, then we should not be willing to give up either.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

After 2014 ends, one of the crucial ways in which we can help Afghan society is by people such as members of the International Development Committee—as well as, of course, the Secretary of State and diplomats—repeatedly going in-country and engaging with the politicians in saying, “This is what we want.” In going out there, parliamentarians are probably being about as effective as we can be.

[Nicola Blackwood]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The recent reports by the IDC have been exceptionally valuable in highlighting not only areas of weakness in Government response but areas of strength that could be expanded and extended, and I do not doubt that the Committee will continue that very good work.

May I press the Secretary of State on some practical steps that the Government can continue to take? In particular, will they ensure that they take all steps possible that will lead to full representation of women in the peace process? Evidence shows extremely clearly that there is a direct correlation between inclusive peace negotiations and a more sustainable peace. So far, we have not seen a very successful effort in this area, and I would like to know exactly what she would like to do to ensure that it can be progressed. Will she update the House on what progress she has made with her commitment to a strategic priority on violence against women and girls in the Afghan operational plan? Will she also update the House on what effect the implementation of the preventing sexual violence initiative could have in Afghanistan after the drawdown? What progress has been made with the gender marker for spending to enable us to track spending by gender throughout future spending in Afghanistan as we move away from Ministry of Defence spending and on to a DFID lead?

Will the Secretary of State once more consider the benefits of having a UK strategy for protecting women human rights defenders? I know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office believes that co-operation within the EU process is the right way forward, but I believe that our skill and expertise in the field of gender security makes it natural for the UK to lead on women’s human rights defence and protection measures. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position on that.

The Afghan men and women I have met who campaign for women’s rights in Parliament and in civil society face some of the gravest threats imaginable, including slander, sexual violence and assassination. In this House, we simply cannot imagine having to face such consequences for our decision to stand for public life. They are incredibly brave and incredibly effective agents for change, and they are our most effective resource for achieving our goals for peace and development in Afghanistan. They deserve to know that the United Kingdom will stand by them as they strive for women’s social and economic empowerment in Afghanistan.

14:23

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I want to start by joining the tributes to the soldier from 32 Engineer Regiment who died in Helmand yesterday and extending our condolences to his family.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House the opportunity to debate this very important topic. I congratulate Amnesty International, which has done so much to ensure that women’s rights in Afghanistan are on the public’s and Parliament’s agendas.

It is worth briefly recapping the history of women’s rights in Afghanistan and how the situation deteriorated from a country in which, from 1919, women could vote, had relative freedom in what they wore, and had equal political participation, to a country under the Taliban where girls were prevented from going to school and women were not allowed to work or to leave the home without a male chaperone, were barred from showing any skin in public, and could not get involved in politics or speak publicly. The discrimination against women extended to prohibiting access to health care delivered by men, which provided no viable option given that women could not work as doctors or nurses. The punishments for defying such discrimination were severe and brutal; women suffered floggings for some perceived transgressions, and were stoned to death if found guilty of adultery. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said in her powerful account of life under the Taliban, some women, despite those restrictions, continued very bravely to try to continue their education in secret schools where women worked as teachers.

Since those years, there has of course been crucial progress. The Afghan constitution gives equal status to women, and in 2009 the Afghan Government introduced the law on the elimination of violence against women. There has been a remarkable expansion in access to education, with the number of girls enrolled in schools increasing from 5,000 in the Taliban’s day to 2.4 million today. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has highlighted the wide-ranging, long-term impact of this change, not only on women’s lives but on attitudes within Afghanistan. It is particularly worth noting how parents at a school supported by the UN special envoy, Angelina Jolie, have pledged to delay their daughters’ marriages so that they may first finish school. That provides an indication not only of how far Afghanistan has come but of the scope for further progress on women’s rights and freedoms.

As we have heard, there is real concern not only that progress will stall but that the gains could be reversed once the international troops withdraw. Constitutional equality is still not reflected in the reality of life for many women in Afghanistan, and the law on ending violence against women, while a landmark achievement, is still, in many cases, not effectively implemented. The Chair of the International Development Committee, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), gave the example of the woman who, despite being very articulate and well educated, almost seemed to accept that she would be subjected to violence in her marriage and would have to tolerate it, saying that she was used to doing that. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) mentioned similar points.

Between March and October 2012, the Afghan independent human rights commission documented 4,000 cases of violence against women—a 28% increase on the year before. Some of those cases were cited by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Amnesty International reports that in the past six months alone, nine high-profile women have been attacked in Afghanistan, including senior police officers who have been murdered, a parliamentarian who survived an attack that killed her eight-year old daughter, the author who wrote about her life under the Taliban and who was dragged from her home and shot, and the senior Government official who was murdered. Most of these attacks have been made with complete impunity. Those tragic cases have received considerable attention due to the women’s prominence, but there have been many other equally shocking attacks on less high-profile women. Amnesty gives the example of the gynaecologist helping the victims of abuse who was targeted because of her work. Her brother was killed and her 11-year-old son was wounded in a grenade attack. A head teacher was targeted because she runs a girls’ school. Her son was abducted and killed, while she continues to receive serious threats.

Clearly, the progress that has been made on girls’ access to education in Afghanistan is no insignificant achievement, but it risks being undermined. In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham spoke about the Taliban conducting a reign of terror against schools. We have heard about several girls’ schools being victims of poisoning and gas attacks last year, and female teachers coming under threat. The 2014 report by Human Rights Watch warned that the perceived “rapidly waning” international interest in Afghanistan is providing opponents of women’s rights with opportunities to roll back advancements. The Afghan independent human rights commission has argued for repeal of the law on ending violence against women. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) mentioned that, as did the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who also spoke of women suffering continued human rights abuses. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian highlighted the plight of young women and girls in jail for so-called moral crimes—a horrible example of how much progress is still to be made.

Only this year, the Afghan Parliament passed a draft criminal procedure code that would prohibit relatives from giving evidence as witnesses and therefore risked obstructing justice for the victims of domestic violence and forced marriage. That was a subject of international concern and it received a welcome veto from President Karzai. It is critical that the UK plays a leading role in maintaining international attention on and support for Afghanistan, including, specifically and explicitly, advocacy of women’s rights, peace and security.

The Government have rightly said—I welcome this—that stability and security is their priority for Afghanistan, but the security situation of women cannot be seen as secondary to that. It is very much part of it—it is an integral part of security in Afghanistan. Indeed, UN Security Council resolution 1325 and the motion under discussion make clear that women’s participation and security are intrinsic to sustainable peace and security.

The UK Government have in the past emphasised the need for a multilateral approach, particularly with regard to working with our European Union partners, which was picked up by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that, despite the need to work at an EU level, the UK also needs to show particular leadership through our bilateral strategy, in the hope that other countries will follow suit if we take a lead on the issue.

The Foreign Secretary has rightly been commended for his efforts to secure global action on sexual violence, as has been said by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), whom I congratulate on his work as a Foreign Office Minister for two years. The Government definitely have our support for the preventing sexual violence initiative. Although Afghanistan is not a priority country for the initiative, it nevertheless seems that the PSVI’s principles could make a valuable contribution in Afghanistan, not least the emphasis it places on working with human rights defenders and helping survivors. I hope the Secretary of State agrees with that.

Amnesty International is also calling on the Government to develop a country-specific plan for the protection of human rights defenders in Afghanistan, as recommended by the EU guidelines on human rights defenders and, indeed, the FCO’s best practice guidance. My understanding, though, is that the Government have so far been reluctant to develop a country-specific plan and have claimed it would add little additional value. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell us what discussions she has had with EU counterparts about developing country-specific plans, how the UK is pushing for full implementation of the UK guidelines, and why the Government do not think that a UK country- specific plan could help activists in Afghanistan and send a strong message to our international partners.

It would also be helpful if the Secretary of State could provide more details on the work that DFID, the FCO and the MOD are currently doing with women human rights defenders. In particular, what steps are the UK Government taking to ensure that Afghan human rights defenders are aware of the EU guidelines and the options they have should they be in need of protection? In what way are the Government consulting the human rights defenders themselves, who are best placed to advise on the assistance they need?

Foreign Governments who work with human rights defenders can raise their profile in Afghanistan, and in many cases women are prepared to take such a risk, but we must be mindful that the most visible women are often the most vulnerable, particularly if the security situation deteriorates further. I would, therefore, like to hear more from the Secretary of State about what measures the FCO has in place to protect those women.

Members have mentioned political participation and the need for women to be engaged in the future elections, and I hope the Government have taken that on board. Given the international troop withdrawal later this year, I am also keen to hear from the Minister about what training and advice has been provided to the Afghan national security forces and their capacity to protect the status of women and women human rights defenders.

In conclusion, I congratulate everyone who has taken part in what has been a brief, truncated, but very important debate.

14:33

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

It is a pleasure to be able to respond to the debate. I would also like to start by paying tribute to the soldier from the 32 Engineer Regiment who lost his life recently. It is a reminder of the huge sacrifice that our armed forces make not only towards keeping our country safe, but, in this case, in helping another country—Afghanistan—develop. I also want to say, on behalf of not only Foreign Office staff, but in particular my own DFID staff who work in Afghanistan, a big thank you to all Members present for their kind words about the work that our civil servants do in Afghanistan. In many respects, it is often forgotten in comparison with the amazing work that our armed forces do, but I meet many of these people and have telecoms with them on a day-to-day basis. They put a huge part of their lives into the service they give to both Departments and I thank them on behalf of the Government.

[Bob Stewart]

May I reiterate exactly what my right hon. Friend has just said? Soldiers operate in a much more protected area and they can protect themselves with their weapons. Some of the bravest of the brave are the people who work in places such as Kabul and go to villages on their own to look after the people of that country. I am thinking specifically of young men and women from my right hon. Friend’s Department and non-governmental organisations. They are incredibly brave.

[Justine Greening]

I could not agree more. I very much appreciate those comments and I know they will be appreciated by DFID and Foreign Office staff.

We have heard many insightful speeches today. Having this debate sends out a message to people, leaders and would-be leaders in Afghanistan about the priority that this Government and this Parliament place on the issue of women’s rights overall, particularly the way in which that relates to Afghanistan. That is absolutely right.

As many Members have said, Afghanistan has made significant progress over the past decade, but it continues to face considerable challenges. There are huge levels of poverty and after three decades of conflict, girls and women in Afghanistan are among the most marginalised and poorest in the world: just 17% of women are literate; they often have very restricted mobility, as we have heard; they are subject to violence on a routine basis; and in many respects they have very little decision-making power over their own lives. Afghanistan remains one of the hardest and worst countries in the world in which to be a woman.

As we have heard, no country can develop if it leaves half its population behind. I assure Members that this Government and I are committed to making sure that these girls and women have the chance to build a better future for themselves and for their country.

As the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) has eloquently pointed out, the situation that many of them face on a day-to-day basis is terrible. She referred to the issue of early enforced marriage, which I raised in a speech earlier this week, in which I set out the UK Government’s determination to play a leading role in combating it.

I have met many of the human rights defenders whom Members have mentioned. They make one feel humble through the work and dangers that they face every single day of their lives and that their families face as a result of their work. They put their lives on the line for their communities and their country. They know that the process of improving human and women’s rights in particular in Afghanistan will take a very long time, yet they are willing to be part of it. We owe it to them to stick with them for the long term, which is precisely what this Government plan to do. I assure the House that our Government will be committed to Afghanistan in the long term. We are going to provide about £180 million in development assistance annually until at least 2017.

The right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) talked about how his Committee has identified this issue as a priority. I could not agree more. It is one of the reasons why, when I came into this role, I made tackling violence against women a strategic priority for our country programme in Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to the need for the UK to show leadership on this topic, and I agree, which is why the work that DFID carries out in Afghanistan has been elevated to a real priority.

Let me briefly tell the House the things we are doing. They focus on making sure that Afghan women can not only have choice in employment, but have a voice. Many Members have spoken about the need for and importance of women being part of the political process in Afghanistan, and that is incredibly important. We are supporting the Afghan electoral commission, particularly in its work to ensure that women are signed up for elections, and we are undertaking additional work to help female candidates be part of the electoral process in Afghanistan.

I assure the House that we will continue to play our role in lobbying the Afghan Government, where necessary, when worrying issues, such as stoning, suddenly come back on to the agenda. I was in Afghanistan when that issue arose again, and I raised it with President Karzai, who quickly assured me that he had no intention of seeing stoning return to Afghanistan.

The hon. Member for North West Durham quite rightly raised her concerns, which I share, about the recent Afghan criminal procedure code, which seemed to suggest that it would be almost impossible for women to give evidence in court or to bring charges in relation to violence against women. We are very pleased that President Karzai has issued a decree to amend the criminal procedure code, and that it has been returned to Parliament for approval. We, along with our international partners, will closely monitor the situation, because we certainly do not want such provisions. I am pleased that President Karzai is taking action, but such an approach needs to continue in practice.

I know that you are keen to ensure that we move on to the next debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want briefly to speak about some of the progress that is being made. We are focusing not just on making sure that women in Afghanistan can be part of the political process, but on the grass-roots Tawanmandi programme, which is all about working with the many human rights defenders on the ground, particularly the community groups focused on violence against women in the domestic situation. I had a chance to meet some of those amazing women during my last visit to Afghanistan at the end of last year, and I talked to them about their personal lives, as well as about the work that they are trying to carry out. They had some inspiring stories, but most of all, they were determined to keep going and to keep working in this area, and we will continue to support them in doing so.

I want briefly to pay tribute to the work done by the Afghan national army. As many Members will know, we have helped it to set up an academy. I can tell the House that, with our help, female trainers are now in place in the academy, and that the first female trainees will join it by June. We will therefore start to see women taking up a role in the security agenda in Afghanistan.

On the Afghan national police, I met the Minister of the Interior when I was in Afghanistan at the end of last year. We are providing his Department with technical assistance to help it make sure that women can not only join the Afghan national police safely, but have a career in that organisation and steadily move through the ranks. I know that the Interior Ministry recognises that that is a real issue to work on, and I very much welcome the chance for DFID to continue working with it over the coming months and years. At the moment, only 1% of the 157,000 Afghan national police officers are female. If the police force is to be able to police the whole of Afghanistan, its make-up clearly needs to represent Afghanistan more effectively.

Education has not been mentioned as much as it might have been—this has been a short debate—but it really is an Afghan success story. As we have heard, at the time of the Taliban, virtually no girls were in school in Afghanistan. Well over 2 million girls now go to school, which is up from virtually zero, and the UK Government are playing a major role in making sure that there are the necessary schools, teachers and tools to allow them to stay in school over the coming years.

We will play our role in making sure that the Afghan Government are held to account for the pledges that they have made to ensure the protection of women’s rights, such as in the Tokyo mutual accountability framework. As has been said, the UK will co-chair the first ministerial review of progress against the commitments made in Tokyo.

We all know that there is a huge amount more to do. Even in the UK, our suffragette movement started in the 1870s, but it took until 1918 for women to get the vote for the first time, which is nearly 50 years. We recognise that the challenges in Afghanistan are absolutely huge, but that does not mean we as a country should not try to meet them or should not be prepared to participate in efforts to improve women’s rights over the long term.

We will do so by supporting women in having their say at the ballot box; by supporting girls in getting into school; by supporting the work on eliminating violence against girls and women and making sure that that law is implemented on the ground; and, crucially, by supporting Afghanistan’s defenders of human rights and civil society. We can help girls and women in Afghanistan to build a better future for themselves and their country, and we can best ensure that the important gains made in recent years are not lost, but are further built on as Afghanistan moves into its future.

14:44

[Sir Robert Smith]

I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. They have all, in their different ways, sent the message to the women of Afghanistan that we care, we understand and we want to see action to support them. The work of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is translating those words into action. We must keep our focus on this matter and return to it, because we cannot turn our back on what has been achieved to date and leave such a fragile country to fall back.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises, ahead of critical presidential elections in April 2014, the essential contribution of Afghan human rights defenders to building peace and security in their country; further recognises the extreme challenges, including violent attacks and killings, that they face as a result of their peaceful work; believes that sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without women’s full participation; and encourages the UK Government to improve its support and protection for women human rights defenders in Afghanistan.

Welsh Affairs

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

14:45

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

It is important to have a Welsh debate in the House of Commons. As you will know, Mr Speaker, when one goes into Central Lobby, one is surrounded by four large arches. The arch that leads to the House of Commons has St David on it. It is therefore appropriate that we are having our St David’s day debate in the House of Commons this year.

Although time is a bit tight, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. I make a plea to the Government and to their successors—I hope that there is a Government of a different colour in 2015—to reinstate a Welsh affairs debate in Government time, because post-devolution, there are many important matters that Welsh Members wish to debate. Many of those are cross-border issues, many concern reserved powers and many reach us as individual Members of Parliament in our constituency surgeries and when we make visits in the constituency. This is a traditional debate that goes back many decades.

I believe Wales to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, and I hope that it will remain so for many decades and centuries. I speak in this debate, as will many Members, as a Welsh patriot—an outward-looking Welsh patriot. I make no apology for being pro-Welsh, pro-British and pro-European Union. Above all, I am pro-Anglesey. I am proud to represent the island community of Ynys Môn, the mother of Wales, in this, the mother of all Parliaments. I see no contradiction in being pro-Welsh, pro-British and pro-European Union. I feel no less Welsh by being pro-United Kingdom and no less British by being pro-European Union.

It is in that context that I want to make my opening remarks, particularly as this Parliament has been preoccupied with separation and divorce. I am speaking, of course, of the Scottish debate about independence, which has been pushed by the nationalist agenda. I am also speaking about the separatists on the Conservative Back Benches, who have been pushing for exit from the European Union. Indeed, they are the tail that has wagged the Conservative dog throughout most of this Parliament, with the Prime Minister trying to steer a very—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) want to intervene? He is making remarks from a sedentary position.

I accept that those are legitimate debates to have in this House and in this democratic society. Nevertheless, I believe, as I am sure do many Members, that those debates are causing instability in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. I believe that to be bad for business and bad for our economies, whether local, regional or national. We heard just today that businesses in Scotland are concerned about the instability that is being caused by those debates and the movements towards separation and divorce.

The head of Shell has warned quite clearly that the talk of separation is causing a lack of the stability and clarity that businesses need in order to invest. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) says “Dutch” from a sedentary position. I worked as a British merchant seaman and many people from Wales work on British vessels. We are proud to serve under the red ensign as British seamen, bringing many pounds to the local economies throughout Wales.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House what the credit agency Standard & Poor’s recently said about the finances of an independent Scotland, and about its take on the current finances of the British state?

[Albert Owen]

I will make my own speech. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such points—[Interruption.] He can laugh, but I do not speak for the Scottish National party, and I certainly do not speak with a nationalist agenda. That is the point I am making, and I will make my own speech in my own way. The hon. Gentleman prompts me, however, to mention local independent polls from Wales and the United Kingdom, which claim that some 5% of the population of Wales want an independent Wales, and separation and divorce from the United Kingdom. The question was asked because of Scottish independence, and I accept that the figure rises to 7% if Scotland were to have independence. I make that remark because I feel it is important for the 95% who want to remain in the United Kingdom to have their voices raised in this House in a proud and co-operative way.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject, what credence does he give to the views of a superannuated, tax-dodging rock star from, I think, New York these days, on the Scottish question?

[Albert Owen]

I do not know who the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but when I speak to chief executive officers of international companies, they say in private that they want stability in the United Kingdom so that they can invest in it—in all parts of it. I referred to the European Union and I am consistent on this issue. Businesses have been telling me in public, in private, and in Select Committees, that they want stability to make those huge investments to help the economies of the United Kingdom.

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

A successful Welsh business such as Airbus really shows how European partnership can work. If we were outside the European Union, does my hon. Friend think we would get the investment, or would those jobs be at threat?

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he puts the issue to bed. We are not just talking about foreign individuals who may be chief executives of companies; we are talking about skilled, well-paid jobs and investment that will boost the economies of Deeside, Bristol and other parts of the United Kingdom. Business leaders at events with Airbus that I have attended have been clear that they are investing in Europe. That is why they want to invest in the United Kingdom, and they choose Deeside because it has an excellent skilled work force. I want that to continue and for many other parts of Wales and the United Kingdom to benefit from that as well.

The Welsh dimension to the constitutional debate in this Parliament has concentrated on the Silk commission, but I am being honest with hon. Members when I say that not one constituent has raised that with me as an important or pertinent issue for them. They do, however, raise important issues about public services and the cost of living, and they talk about international affairs—we had an excellent debate on women in Afghanistan today. People send us here to talk about real issues that affect them.

I speak as a proud pro-devolutionist and I supported devolution in 1979. Many fellow travellers have come along since that time, including the Labour party. To me, however, real devolution is about empowering people throughout our country. It is not about the simple transfer of powers from one institution in Whitehall to another in Cardiff Bay; to me it is about empowering people in Cemaes bay in my constituency, and in Colwyn bay, Cardigan bay, and many other parts of Wales. It is not just about the boring constitutional issues that we, the political elite, are bogged down with and a few commentators are talking about.

I want to talk about the real issue of developing a stable and growing economy in Wales as part of the United Kingdom and the European Union, and I will mention two things that affect businesses and people in my constituency: energy and tourism.

On energy, I very much welcome the fact that we are getting a consensus on the big energy issues, for reasons that I gave earlier including the stability that businesses crave so that they can make huge investments in the future. I welcome the Secretary of State’s support for Wylfa Newydd and his conversion to offshore wind. I shall put this mildly because I want the consensus to continue, but when the Secretary of State worked alongside me on the Welsh Affairs Committee I recall him being concerned about the consents under the previous Government. He now backs those schemes and even claims credit for them as the flagship of the coalition Government.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

I can actually see the Gwynt y Môr wind farm from my sitting room, so I can recognise a fact of life.

[Albert Owen]

I take that point, and the Secretary of State may now find that an attractive view from his window, but at one time he did not want it to go ahead. He would not have been able to see it from his window, nor would he have been able to meet many of the targets that we are making progress towards in a low-carbon economy. I have always thought that offshore wind has a great future, although I am a little less certain about onshore wind, because of the sheer size of some of the turbines.

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

Given that offshore wind normally needs a strike price of about £150 per megawatt-hour, is the hon. Gentleman as happy to argue that people should be willing to pay more for their electricity as he is to argue for those wind farms to be built?

[Albert Owen]

We need a mix. We need a base load and we need variable energy. If we do not have interconnectors and we are producing too much energy in the summer, when peak demand is less, we cannot switch off nuclear power stations and it is expensive to switch off gas. It is easier to switch off variable supplies such as renewables can provide, including wind. There is an initial cost, but those costs are coming down, and I believe that with economies of scale—as with the strike price for nuclear or for any other renewable—the price will decrease as the sector matures. In the long term, bills will be cheaper if we get a steady supply of low carbon energy.

Nuclear power is also part of the mix. I welcome the conversion of the Secretary of State to wind power and the conversion of the Liberal Democrats to nuclear power. I hope that that means that the three larger parties, two of which form the Government now and one of which I hope will form the next Government, will be consistent in the future.

[Mr David Jones]

Would the hon. Gentleman be able to inform the House of the position of Plaid Cymru in his constituency on nuclear power?

[Albert Owen]

It is up to Plaid Cymru to defend itself. As I have been provoked into raising the issue, I will say that it is important that all the larger parties here and the larger parties in the Assembly—of which Plaid Cymru is one—show their support. In my opinion, a party cannot claim to be in full support of a technology if its leader says that she wants an energy future without nuclear power. The leader of a party cannot say that to business leaders and then say that she supports the jobs. We need to support the development of the technology. On Plaid Cymru’s website, which I get little notes about occasionally, the energy spokesperson says that it wants 100% renewable energy by 2035—there is no mention of nuclear. That is a clear indication that Plaid Cymru opposes nuclear as part of the energy mix in the future. That will be an issue for the general election as we make progress on the building of Wylfa Newydd. I hope that that answers the Secretary of State’s intervention.

[Hywel Williams]

Tag team!

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman says, “Tag team!”, and I will come to that issue in a moment.

Yesterday, I and other Members of Parliament held an event on Britain’s nuclear future. None of the Plaid Cymru Members came, but it was attended by apprentices and graduates from Wales, who have jobs on the Wylfa site. The Welsh Government, the local authority and the UK Government have put aside moneys to train young people, giving them the opportunity to have a quality job. This policy, which is supported by parties in this House, will enhance local economies. It will benefit my area socially and culturally, as it has done for some 40 years.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is always kind when somebody seeks to intervene. Energy is a contentious issue, and there are divisions within all parties on every aspect of energy policy. For instance, how would he be responding if the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was in his place this afternoon?

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and I do not agree on nuclear power, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman who does agree: the Labour leader in the authority in my constituency, the Labour First Minister of Wales and the Leader of the Opposition, who was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Labour party has continuity, with party leaders proudly saying what its policy is. The leader of Plaid Cymru does not support this policy, but expects the people in my area to vote for it, which is disingenuous and wrong. Energy is a big issue in general election campaigns. Of course there are individuals, but we expect leaders to provide leadership and clarity not just for the country but for investment.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has come in and is speaking rather loudly. Does he want to intervene?

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

I was not planning to intervene, but I understand that Labour has some difficulty regarding further powers for Wales. The Scottish Parliament is not very powerful. Why would the hon. Gentleman not want the Welsh Assembly to be at least as powerful as the Scottish Parliament is today?

[Albert Owen]

I have made no comment on that. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that I have been supporting devolution since 1979. I believe in a devolved Administration, but the issue is not about more powers. If he had been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard me say that people do not raise the issue of more powers with me as a constituency MP.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I am not giving way again, because the hon. Gentleman was not here earlier. He was speaking loudly and that is why I let him intervene, but I need to finish my remarks. If he had been in earlier, he would have heard exactly what I said.

As a pro-devolutionist who goes further than my party on many issues—[Interruption.] A pro-devolutionist is someone who believes that powers should be devolved not just to Administrations, such as those in Edinburgh or Cardiff, but to the people in their local area. I do not believe that many people want independence. That is what the polls tell me. I think we will move towards the Scottish Parliament model when the people of Wales require it, and I will be arguing for those powers at that time. The powers that people want now are economic: they want to improve their cost of living. That is the debate we had when the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was not here.

On energy, we need continuity. The young people I met yesterday are Britain’s future. They are Wales’s future and they are my constituency’s future, too. They will get high-paid, quality jobs by working in the nuclear industry. They are the model young Welsh Europeans of the future and they want a stake in that future. They are proud to be Welsh. One of them is going to Twickenham on Sunday, where he will be supporting the Welsh team in its efforts to regain the Six Nations championship. They are proud Welsh people who are proud to be part of the United Kingdom. That is who I meet on a day-to-day basis, and that is who I have come here to represent.

North Wales MPs met Centrica this week, which will be making a substantial investment in offshore wind. We need to encourage that. I make a plea to the Secretary of State that, along with north Wales MPs, he makes the strong argument that the benefits go not to other parts of the United Kingdom, but to close by north Wales. We have the port facilities and the skilled labour force to retain thousands of quality jobs in our region and it is very important that we do so. The port of Holyhead needs investment, but unfortunately Stena is concentrating on the wrong things. It is talking about cutting the wages and conditions of crews when it should be investing in the port so that it can fulfil its potential and secure the extra business that will create thousands of quality jobs in the future. I hope that the Secretary of State will meet me so that we can speak with one voice on that issue.

I want to say a little about tourism. Wales as a product is of an international standard, but we are competing against the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Let me again issue a plea to the Secretary of State and the Government. Our near neighbours, the Republic of Ireland and France, have cut the rate of value added tax to boost and stimulate the economy—

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

No, I will not give way again.

Ireland and France have done that for a very good reason: they have done it because business has been asking them to do it. There is no reason why any part of the United Kingdom could not benefit from a cut in VAT. An application could be made to reduce it, and that would stimulate the economy.

[Hywel Williams]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

I will give way once more, but that will be the final intervention, because I am conscious of the time.

[Hywel Williams]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that VAT on tourism should be reduced, as indeed should VAT on building, renovations and repairs. In 2008, ECOFIN decided to allow countries to reduce VAT to 5%. What did the Labour Government do about that from 2008 onwards?

[Albert Owen]

No request was made to me. If it had been, I would have lobbied for such a reduction. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. However, I have found—and I am sure that he will agree with me about this—that the hike in VAT to 20% has had a negative effect on spending in many areas. Local businesses tell me that. Hon. Members should not listen to what I am saying; listen to them. There is a good campaign across the United Kingdom for a cut in VAT on tourism.

One leading business person told me that whenever he takes his partner, son-in-law and daughter out for a drink, he has to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer with him, because 20% of the bill goes to the Treasury. That cannot be right. Other European Union member states are enjoying a VAT reduction, and have benefited from hundreds of thousands of extra jobs and from investment in tourism.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Albert Owen]

I will, but this really will be the last intervention, because, as I have said, I am conscious of the time.

[Alun Cairns]

Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that cutting the VAT paid by tourist businesses to 5% is Labour party policy?

[Albert Owen]

I am not going to take a lecture from someone who voted for it to be raised to 20%. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can flap their hands as much as they want—

[Mr MacNeil]

Labour abstained.

[Albert Owen]

I certainly did not abstain on any vote on this. I have been in favour of reducing VAT. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) may smirk, but businesses in his constituency have contacted me about this very issue. Either he wants to make knockabout party points, or he wants to stand up for businesses in his area. Unlike him, I voted against raising VAT, because I believe that it is a regressive tax which cuts business investment. When the Government talk about reducing taxes, they forget that they have hiked up value added tax. The businesses of this country are raising that issue with me, which is why I think it legitimate for me to raise it here today.

I want people to come to Wales to work, to live and to visit. I want home-grown businesses to grow and flourish, welcoming the investment that we receive from the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the European Union and the rest of the world. I want Wales to become the place in which to do business. I want it to be a destination, and I want its young people to flourish in the future. That will happen if we are pro-Welsh economy, pro-Britain, pro-Europe and pro-business.

15:09

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

I agreed with many of the things the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, although I disagreed in certain important respects. I agree that of course it is possible to be proud to be Welsh, proud to be British and at the same time proud to be European, but when I say I am proud to be European, I mean I am proud to be part of the Europe that gave us the renaissance and the enlightenment values that have spread democracy over all the world and which people across the world look up to—[Interruption.] Yes, even if they do not seem to be following them in some parts of the world. What I am not proud of, however, is the European Union, because that is an entirely artificial construct which is completely undemocratic and, in the manner in which it goes about its business, is going against the values that Europe has given us over many hundreds of years. But I am, of course, proud to be Welsh and proud to be British.

Being proud to be Welsh does not mean having to give absolute support to the Welsh Assembly and to support giving it extra powers every couple of years, which is what seems to be happening at the moment. I sometimes wish I was as good at being able to predict the movement of the stock market as I am at being able to predict what is going to happen whenever somebody sets up a body to look at giving more powers to the Welsh Assembly. As I made clear in a Welsh Affairs Committee meeting, it was obvious from the start—before Mr Silk, who I admire personally, although I suspect I disagree with him politically on many things, traversed Wales, speaking at empty village halls the length and breadth of the nation—what was going to happen: at the end of the process, Mr Silk was simply going to recommend giving yet another tranche of powers to the Welsh Assembly, which is exactly what has happened.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman see any benefit for the Welsh tourism industry if the Welsh Assembly or a Parliament in Wales had powers over VAT? Could it cut VAT to compete with independent nations such as Ireland or France, which were cited by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)? Is it not bizarre to complain about something and then not want the power to do anything about it?

[David T. C. Davies]

No, I think that, as people on different sides of the political fence recognise, great difficulties would be caused if, in an area where most people live along the border, one side cut VAT while the other kept it at the original level. That differential would create enormous economic problems. What I would be interested in doing is looking at the economic case for a cut in VAT for tourism across the whole of the United Kingdom, or at least across all those bits that wish to remain in the United Kingdom, and retain the benefits that come from that.

When we consider what the Assembly has actually managed to achieve, we should be very cautious about giving it further powers, particularly over policing, which is what is being discussed as a result of Silk 2. Let us consider the areas where the Welsh Assembly already has complete powers, such as inward investment. Inward investment has been a disaster over the years since the Assembly was set up. We went from being one of the most successful regions of the United Kingdom in attracting foreign inward investment to being the second lowest region. There are a number of reasons for that, many of which we heard when the Select Committee investigated this issue. We heard stories about people who were set up in so-called embassies in other parts of the world but could not even speak the language of the country they were supposed to be selling Wales to, and people who were not seen or heard of. We heard stories from Brussels that, while Scotland—to be fair—and Yorkshire and other regions of the United Kingdom had been very successful in raising their profile, nobody had ever heard of anyone from Wales. At the same time we have had problems with education, which is an important factor when companies decide where to locate. I believe there is also an issue with energy, which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn also mentioned and which I shall come back to shortly. Certainly, however, the record on inward investment has been a complete and utter disaster.

Education is now a story not just for the Welsh papers, but for the national papers. The PISA—programme for international student assessment—results were a disaster for those of us who have children in the state education system, as I do, and I went through it myself in Wales in the 1980s. The latest GCSE results for English came out today. I quickly looked at them on the BBC website and apparently they are much worse than expected, although the Welsh Assembly is once again quick to try to distance itself from the poor results.

I believe there is a particular problem, which was summed up by Lee Waters. He worked, I believe, for a number of Labour Ministers in the Welsh Assembly. He is a man of many qualities, but not voting Conservative is not one of them; it is a shame that he does not. He hit the nail on the head today in an article in The Times when he wrote about the fact that the Welsh Assembly was deliberately trying to do things differently in areas where it had the power just because it could—not because it could do a better job, but simply to try to show that it was not going to follow what England does.

Ministers might not like me saying this, but if we compare what has gone on in England with what has gone on in Wales, we can see that the English education reforms have simply built on the reforms that Tony Blair put in place but was unable to carry out. I read his memoirs with great interest, and I was struck by the way in which his health and education policies were reflected almost exactly in the policies that were in the Conservative manifesto. It is therefore quite bizarre that Labour subsequently attacked our policies so vigorously, given that the ideas came from Labour itself.

[Hywel Williams]

What does the hon. Gentleman make of this week’s press reports that Labour will, if it ever gets back into government, adopt the reforms that are being promoted for England by the Secretary of State for Education?

[David T. C. Davies]

I very much welcome that, of course. It is not particularly surprising, however, because reforms such as the introduction of academies, the use of the private sector and the better use of inspections were all being suggested by Tony Blair. He started to implement them under Andrew Adonis but, for one reason or another, was unable to complete them. It is not in the least bit surprising that Labour Members now recognise that we have built on their reforms, and extended and widened them a little. Why would they want to go back on them? The problem is that we have two Labour parties in the United Kingdom. In England, we have a sort of new Labour, which to some extent recognises the need to deal with business and the private sector, if only so that it can get taxes off them in order to spend them. In Wales, we have a kind of old Labour, red in tooth and claw, that still has not woken up to the fact that the 1970s finished about 40 years ago.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[David T. C. Davies]

I would be delighted to give way to a true representative of old Labour.

[Chris Evans]

What can I say to that? Does the hon. Gentleman not also believe that there are two Conservative parties, judging by the comments and actions of the leader of the Conservative party in the Welsh Assembly?

[David T. C. Davies]

There are certainly differences. I will speak for myself, and others may follow. I think I am right in offering my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman. Has he recently had a child? He is looking a bit worried—perhaps it was someone further along the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] I am told that it was actually the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). My congratulations to him. He, too, will no doubt be experiencing the state education sector in Wales shortly.

My recommendation is that we look at what has gone wrong in that sector. There are not enough schools inspections, and far too much notice is given of those that are taking place. That practice has been done away with in England. I worked with the police for many years, as Members know. We could not have a situation in which a policy custody unit was told weeks in advance that it was going to be inspected; people just turned up and did it. That is how it should be with schools, and with hospitals. That is not what is happening in Wales, however.

I have been told by head teachers, and by schools improvement officers, that it is difficult for people to go in and assess how a teacher is doing in a classroom because the unions do not like it. Similarly, the unions do not like league tests, or testing of any other sort, and they are making it very difficult for people to go in and make the kind of changes that are required.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I spent 12 years working in the classroom, and I am still a paid-up member of a teaching trade union. My experience of the unions is that they were certainly not obstacles to the inspection regime. I want to probe the hon. Gentleman a little further on the question of education in Wales. What does he see as the main explanation for those PISA results, and for the failings in English literacy and mathematics in particular? Will he tell us what the main failings are that he has identified, rather than giving us the kind of jargon that he was articulating just now?

[David T. C. Davies]

I do not think that I was using jargon; I was spelling it out in fairly simple English. But okay, I will give the hon. Gentleman a list of things. First, I am told that it is difficult for head teachers to go in and assess teachers. They are allowed to do it only a couple of times a year, and they cannot simply walk into a classroom. I have been told that by two senior educationists in Wales, working in totally separate schools, over the past few weeks. Either they are wrong or the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

I have also been told that schools get a great deal of notice before an inspection takes place, and I think that is wrong. Inspectors ought to be able to go in without any notice whatsoever and find out what is going wrong. I know for a fact that when I was in the Welsh Assembly the unions and everyone else seemed to be totally against testing, but testing is a good thing. If my children are failing in tests, I want to know about it and to get involved. There is also a problem with sickness, whereby too many teachers are taking too many sick days in schools in Wales and that is not being properly investigated afterwards by the personnel departments. It is also far too difficult to get rid of bad teachers who are not up to the job. That situation can occur in any walk of life, but in most others someone who is not up to a job will be got rid of by someone higher up. That does not seem to happen in teaching. I do not think all that is jargon; those are fairly simple matters.

May I make one last point on this, which is the most important one of all? In England, there is a recognition that parents have a right to have some say over their children’s education, and they can exercise that most drastically by taking their children out of the state system and putting them into some kind of an academy. As a parent, I welcome that, because it is my taxpayer’s money that is being spent and I ought to have a say. If the school is not up to the job, I ought to have the right to take my child out and put them somewhere else. I do not have that right in Wales, and that is taking away an incentive for teachers to improve.

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, which is interesting in terms of the direction that the questions are coming from. Does he share my concern that the hands of the Liberal Democrats, and even those of Plaid Cymru, are not necessarily clean in this area, because they will have been part of the coalition during some of the formative years, when some of the education policies were put in place?

[David T. C. Davies]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. The Labour party has generally been the lead party in the Assembly since it was set up, but at other times Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have been involved.

[Mr Mark Williams]

I respect the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes those remarks, but I spent 12 years in the classroom and no head teacher was ever prevented from inspecting any lessons I undertook. Does he think that he could add to his list the issue of resources? Our Government have addressed that in part through the pupil premium, and Liberals in Wales, along with Labour colleagues, have pursued a similar policy there. That has been a good measure. Resources are important, but so, too, is maintaining properly motivated and confident staff. One challenge to this Government in Westminster is to retain that well-motivated staff, because the jury is out so far on that.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to my friend—I am not sure whether he is an hon. Friend, a colleague or what under this coalition, but he is that—for the compliment. I agree that both those matters are important. On resources, the Government have rightly made cuts to all sorts of departments, except to foreign aid; I could launch into another speech on that, but will not do so. Generally speaking, the Government have had to make cuts—we have done so rightly—to try to balance the books, but we have not cut money to the Welsh Assembly. The amount of money that it has had overall has increased slightly, although people there will try to argue that when inflation is factored in it is not quite as much as it once was. So that is certainly not an issue that can be laid at the door of either of us in this coalition Government. Of course I completely agree that it is important that staff are motivated, and I would regret it if anything were ever done to stop that happening, but there is a difference between de-motivating people and allowing them to get away with things.

May I just move on to health, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is the other big area of which the Welsh Assembly has control?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman may certainly move on to health and to his other subjects, but I am sure he must be considering the fact that he has spoken for some time and that many other Members wish to speak. I do not suggest that he stops immediately, but he might like possibly to accelerate his next few points.

[David T. C. Davies]

I would certainly not want to deprive the House of the wisdom of hearing from anyone else from the Principality, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wonder whether there is some way you could indicate to me for how much longer you think I should detain the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman will get the feeling of the House as he progresses. Another few minutes would be fine.

[David T. C. Davies]

I will try to be brief. I do not even need to say too much about health, because much of it has been said by Labour Members who have been affected. Suffice it to say, a member of my own family has been very badly affected by the second-rate service that we are getting in Wales. In England, people requiring cataract treatment can expect to be seen in 18 weeks. In Wales, it is 36 weeks, so people have to wait for twice as long. The Welsh Assembly are failing to meet even their own poor targets. When I last checked, some 300 people had been waiting more than 36 weeks for cataract treatment, which could easily lead to people going blind. That is an absolute disgrace.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman needs to make the distinction. Surely he means not the Welsh Assembly but the Government. If there are health or other issues in the UK, it is the responsibility not of the Parliament but of the Government of the particular Parliament or Assembly.

[David T. C. Davies]

That is certainly true, and a variety of parties have been in government and should take responsibility, but the Conservative party is not one of them. The Conservative Government in London have overall responsibility for the economy, which affects Wales, and have done a superb job in cutting the deficit, dealing with the way in which benefits were being handed out to one and all, and getting people back into work. That is something of which we can be enormously proud.

We need to look at issues such as the Severn bridge, which was debated yesterday. I thank the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for making such important points on which there could be cross-party agreement in Wales. Something needs to be done about the tolls, and it needs to happen as soon as the concession ends.

Finally, to go back to the points made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, we all agree that manufacturing and developing our manufacturing industry are important, but I disagree that that can be done by an overuse of renewable energy, which actually leads to higher overall energy costs. One of the things that manufacturers need now is low energy costs. America, for example, which has halved its energy prices, is seeing manufacturers coming back from places such as the far east. I hope the Government will think carefully about swallowing any more of the green propaganda, which has led to a demise in manufacturing in Wales and elsewhere.

Overall, we have a great deal of which we can be proud. The Labour leader has said that he wishes to learn lessons from Wales. The lesson is that if a person votes Labour in Wales, they will get longer waiting lists, their children will not get as good an education and they can forget about inward investment. If that is the lesson that he wants to shout out to everyone in the run-up to the election, I wish him every success.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House will be aware that there are a great many Members who wish to speak this afternoon and a limited amount of time in which they can do so. I therefore have to impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of seven minutes.

15:27

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

That ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, necessary as it is, shows how truncated what used to be the great St David’s day debate, which has been held in this House since 1944, has become. It has been reduced to an hour and a half with seven-minute limits at the tail end of a Thursday. Of course it is not St David’s day today. It is the feast day of St Colette of France, a well-known mediaeval saint and, among other things, the patron saint of pregnant women.

I want to talk not about pregnant women but about a serious matter that is becoming a scourge in Wales, in my constituency and across the United Kingdom. I refer to the absolutely inappropriately misnamed legal highs. I have no doubt that there are many Members who have some knowledge about the people who sell such substances to our constituents. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), we have suffered the scourge of legal high shops, or head shops. There is one in Pontnewydd in Cwmbran and one in Newport.

Since the shops have opened, there has been an increase in the number of youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17 affected by these particular drugs, according to the accident and emergency department at the Royal Gwent hospital. Between 2012 and 2013, the Gwent drug interventions programme in Cwmbran tested 500 people in police custody for legal highs, 70% of whom came back positive. In an attempt to deal with those serious issues, the two shops were raided last October. Five people were arrested and 58 different substances were seized and sent for testing. The shops were temporarily closed, but they are now back, and another one has opened on Osbourne road in Pontypool, further up the valley in my constituency.

We can look at the websites of these dreadful places, as young people undoubtedly do. This is just one example. The owners of the shop ask the question, “What are legal highs?” and the site states that they

“are substances made from assorted herbs, herbal extracts and ‘research chemicals’. They produce the same, or similar effects, to drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy, but are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. They are however, considered illegal under current medicines legislation to sell, supply or advertise for ‘human consumption’. To get round this sellers” –

that is, the owners of the shop themselves –

“refer to them as research chemicals, plant food, bath crystals or pond cleaner.”

The site concedes that the effects of these so-called legal highs are no different from the effects of those that are illegal.

One product called “Exodus Damnation”, which is currently advertised on the shop’s website, was the cause of a near fatal heart attack suffered by 17-year-old Matt Ford in Canterbury. In Pontypool in my constituency, 176 people signed a petition saying that the shop should not be opened. Their views were strongly expressed to the police and local authorities, all of whom could do absolutely nothing. It is simply not right that our councils, our police forces and our law enforcement agencies can do virtually nothing to stop such shops opening and poisoning hundreds and thousands of young Welsh people with these appalling so-called highs.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important subject. Does he also agree that the long-term health implications of the substances that some young people are taking should also make us extremely worried? We do not know what is in them and that could lead to serious problems in the future.

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed, we do not know that. People have been temporarily blinded by such substances and have had large lumps come out on their bodies, and it could be that in the long term they will suffer even greater illnesses.

One of these groups of shops, called Chill South Wales, has a Facebook page on which it promotes its products. The most recent post is an image of four children’s cartoon characters with a range of drugs paraphernalia. We have looked at the list of 394 Facebook friends; many of them are still at school and some are as young as 12. Those young people have no idea what they are taking and no way of knowing the possible dangers or the long-term health risks. These products are just as dangerous as illegal drugs, if not more so as people unwittingly think that they are safe because they are legal and are being sold on our high streets. That could not be further from the truth.

To be fair, I think the Government are doing what they can by using temporary class drug orders to ban substances as they come along, but it is a game of catch-up: as soon as one substance is banned, another appears in the marketplace. More than 250 substances have been banned, but more are appearing at a rate of one a week.

The Home Office review is to be welcomed.

[Hywel Williams]

As a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I visited a forensic lab just outside London and was shown a selection of the drugs that had been confiscated in the few weeks before our visit. The system is now privatised and those I spoke to reported that they found it very difficult to keep up with the novel substances as they were imported, mainly from China. Is the right hon. Gentleman content that the Government are putting enough money into the forensic service to keep up with these novel drugs?

[Paul Murphy]

I certainly think that many more resources need to be put into this and we should use all available avenues to alert and warn our young people of the dangers of these drugs. Our schools, colleges, education services and local authorities must do all they can to let people know how terrible, dangerous and toxic these drugs are.

We must certainly consider giving local authorities special powers to close down the shops and I think that we should legislate to do so. Perhaps we could adopt the model they have in New Zealand, where the onus is on suppliers to prove that the substances are safe. A lot more thought must go into this.

Today’s debate is, of course, about Wales, and this is an ideal opportunity for the UK Government and the Welsh Government to work together, as they have different responsibilities but the same aim of trying to deal with these terrible things. I have worked with my local Assembly Member, Lynne Neagle, on this matter. I believe that there is a case for the Secretary of State or the Minister to contact their counterparts in Cardiff Bay to see whether we can tackle this appalling abuse. One great advantage of a Welsh affairs debate is that we can raise such issues on the Floor of the House of Commons, which since devolution has not been quite so easy to do. I am sure that our constituents do not see the distinction when it comes to the Welsh Government being in charge of health and the United Kingdom Government being in charge of criminal justice. Both Governments need to ensure that we deal with this terrible plague affecting our young people in Wales.

15:35

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

For me, as the MP for Montgomeryshire, there is no more enjoyable political experience than speaking in this Chamber in a Welsh affairs debate linked to St David’s day. In fact, I have moved from my usual place on the back row because I wanted to make my speech as close as I am ever likely to be to the seat from which Lord Roberts spoke—his attitude to Welsh affairs was very similar to mine—and indeed from which spoke the most extraordinary Welsh politician of the last century, David Lloyd George. He led a Conservative-Liberal coalition a very long time ago. I enjoy visiting his museum. I promise not to indulge in the kinds of rhetorical flourishes he used when speaking in the House.

[Paul Murphy]

The hon. Gentleman interests the House with his reference to Lloyd George and the coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals. He will, of course, remember what happened to the Liberal party after that coalition fell.

[Glyn Davies]

I am hoping to make a speech without any sour notes, if possible.

My main political interest over recent decades has been the interests of Wales. I am unashamedly a Welsh politician. For many years I was involved in developing the Welsh economy—a new economy for Wales after the devastation of the beginning of the last century—by working with the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Tourist Board and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Through the late ’80s and early ’90s, those organisations did a magnificent job in developing the Welsh economy. I think that they were wound up too soon. Clearly, all quangos are wound up in the end, but I think they were wound up before the job was done, a decision that was taken, I believe, on the basis of prejudice, rather than evidence.

I am intensely proud of being a Welshman. It influences my politics in virtually everything I do in this Chamber. I simply do not accept that to be independently minded, to be culturally and linguistically proud, to be emotionally linked to our Welsh history and to be aware of our distinctive nationhood should ever be the preserve of Welsh nationalists, of Plaid Cymru. It is, and must always be, a part of Conservative philosophy.

There are a million issues I could speak about, but I will touch on just a few. The first is an economic view from rural mid-Wales, where I live. We know that Wales is not a coherent geographical unit. Economically, north Wales is always linked to the north-west of England, mid-Wales is linked to the midlands and south Wales is linked to the M4 corridor. I think that we should challenge the judgment of investing in links between north and south Wales, and not just on the basis of economic benefit, but on the cost-benefit analysis. During my years in the National Assembly, I always thought that there was an element of wanting to develop Wales as a geographical region, rather than just looking at the cost, as with the A470 and the A483. I think that is a real objective, because developing Wales as a coherent unit is important in itself.

Mid-Wales warrants much better treatment that it receives from the Welsh Government, and this is a long-term issue. Wales has an area in the middle between north Wales and south Wales, and it has always been a battle to develop the same awareness of mid-Wales as of the other two areas. We must focus on mid-Wales so that it brings the other two areas closer together. I have always thought there was a case for more investment in mid-Wales to create a unified Wales rather than just for the benefit of individual projects.

Mid-Wales is not just an area to put wind farms—they do not bring much economic benefit to the local economy—and which can then be forgotten in terms of industrial development. Given some political views—certainly not mine—in Wales, that is a danger, and we should challenge it.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

My hon. Friend and I worked together on the Development Board for Rural Wales. In Newtown and Welshpool, where investment was focused, there is a residue of manufacturing, as there is in Brecon. Would such investment not bring great benefit to rural mid-Wales again?

[Glyn Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We worked together on the sort of development that not just transformed mid-Wales, but brought north and south Wales closer together. That is a point I wanted to make in this debate.

Wales should be developed not just as an economic unit, because it is important to develop it as a political entity. That has probably always happened throughout history, but it has certainly gathered pace in recent decades. The Secretary of State has taken delivery of the Silk commission’s report, which came in two parts. There will be other opportunities to talk about it, but it makes two particularly important recommendations.

The first part of the report recommends that significant income tax powers should be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. When the commission was set up, its main purpose in my opinion, and I think in the Government’s opinion, was to give the Assembly financial accountability so that decisions were made on raising money and spending it. The debate would then be the same as in every other democratic body imaginable and include raising money. Unless they accept that responsibility for raising the money they spend, the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly will not become a real governing body or a proper Parliament. That is hugely important.

[Mr MacNeil]

Surely an issue that is allied to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about tax-raising powers is nurturing and growing the economy. I would argue further that the Republic of Ireland was behind Wales economically 100 years ago, but it has leapfrogged Wales and Scotland. The reason is that the Republic of Ireland had the power not just to tax and spend, but to see which parts of its economy it wanted to nurture and grow. Wales will not be able to do that until it has powers equivalent to those in the Isle of Man, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark and so on. Essentially, it needs the power to be at the helm and to make its own decisions for its own people.

[Glyn Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I want the Welsh Government to become a proper Government with sharp debate so that debates about the budget engage Welsh people. They would take much more interest in a Welsh Government with tax-raising powers.

The First Minister of Wales has put some blocks in the way, but I sense that after the result of the Scottish referendum those blocks may be resolved. There are three parties in Wales that are generally supportive of this principle, but Labour seems instinctively not to be. I do not know what the shadow Secretary of State’s view is, but I suspect that he is not greatly in favour of devolving income tax powers to the Assembly because of the responsibility it carries. I would plead with him to change his opinion. Let us see devolution develop as it should. This is the next obvious step in the process of devolution, and we must get a grip on that.

In my last 36 seconds—I would have liked to have had20 minutes—I want to touch on a cross-border issue that I have raised before. We have to stop devolution damaging the interests of Wales. We talk about education and health, but the issue that is particularly relevant to me is the cross-border road schemes that would go ahead without devolution but are now unable to go ahead because England is not willing to commit money to its half of such schemes as there is no economic benefit for it. We have to develop a relationship with the Department for Transport to stop that damaging Wales, as it currently does.

15:45

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for the opportunity to debate Welsh affairs today. I want to raise two issues relating to employment in my constituency.

However, let me begin by strongly agreeing with the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) on the problem of legal highs, particularly in Gwent. That issue very much came home to me on Sunday, when I was with my kids in a corner of a park in Newport and saw dozens and dozens of empty legal-high packets of all shapes, sizes and colours, with enticing graphics on the front. As in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, premises in Newport were closed down; I believe they were part of the same operation. As a result, I went to a briefing by the team in Gwent police who are dealing with this issue and working extremely hard on it with the local authorities. When the Home Secretary came into post, she promised swift action on legal highs. However, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is an extremely difficult issue involving hundreds of different substances and thousands of different sellers. The legislation is out of date and we are playing catch-up. We need to give local authorities and the police the tools to do the job, not least because people have absolutely no idea what they taking, and we are very much storing up health problems for the future.

I want to talk about the economy in Newport. In recent times, we have heard much from the Government and their Welsh team about how things are improving in Wales, with the recovery under way and things getting easier. Of course, I welcome falls in unemployment in my constituency, although youth unemployment remains unacceptably high, but beneath those figures there is a different story. It is still the case that about 300,000 Welsh workers earned below the living wage in 2012. I would like to say a very big “Well done and congratulations” to Newport council for its decision last week to implement the living wage.

In Wales, we have seen the largest increase in the UK in the number of people who want to work more hours but cannot find them due to the Tories’ failed economic policies. Some 65,000 people are deemed to be under-employed in Wales. Only this morning, a young girl came into my office in Newport and talked about how hard it was for her family because her father’s hours had been reduced from 40 to 14. That is the reality for many people in my constituency.

In recent weeks, there has been bad news for employment in our city of Newport. First, there were the job losses at the Avana bakery—the Secretary of State has been involved with this—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). The bakery announced that it would possibly lose up to 650 jobs following the loss of a contract with Marks and Spencer. Secondly, we learned that there is a threat to public sector jobs at the Ministry of Justice shared services centre in Celtic Springs. Then, only this week, we heard the very hard news that 123 jobs are under threat at the Orb steel works, which has a long history of steelmaking in my constituency and is a subsidiary of Tata Steel. At the MOJ and Orb works, there are things that the Government could do to step in, and that is the focus of my remarks.

This week’s announcement that Tata Steel will be restructuring the work force at the Orb steelworks may lead to the loss of 83 direct jobs and 40 contractors’ jobs. That is really hard news for those workers—and their families—who have worked extremely flexibly over the past few years. These are skilled jobs that we can ill afford to lose from Wales. It is an extremely challenging time for the steel industry in Wales, and this announcement underlines that. Demand for steel is down, imports from outside Europe are up and steel manufacturers are being hit by higher energy costs. The price of electricity for steelmakers in the UK is about 38% higher than in France and 56% higher than in Germany. Those are massive differences and they are hitting our industries. UK producers also pay levies and taxes such as the carbon floor price and the renewables obligation, but German and French steelmakers—not to mention those outside Europe—are largely protected from those. The accumulative impact is that we are putting UK steelmakers at a competitive disadvantage, with customers seeing UK energy costs as a particular problem.

I know that the Government have accepted the arguments that high energy prices impact on UK manufacturers and that the most energy-intensive industries should be protected from rising green taxes. However, what has been done so far is not enough to mitigate those costs or reverse the manufacturers’ fortunes. In the Budget, the Government need to take more action on high energy costs, the carbon price floor and renewables obligations, which are hitting us really hard, particularly in Wales, at a time when demand for steel is down.

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point. The carbon price floor, which disadvantages this country, was brought in unilaterally in the past couple of years. We cannot blame Europe for that; it is down to this British Government.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I very much agree with him. I know that time is running out, but we need Wales Office Ministers urgently to press the Treasury on that matter in advance of the Budget.

The Government are also potentially to offshore Government jobs from the MOJ shared services centre in Newport. I am very reliant on the public sector in my constituency. People in the public sector have had their wages frozen and there has been a sustained attack on their numbers. In fact, in the recent Centre for City report, Newport came bottom for employment growth in the private sector.

Was it only in January that the Prime Minister said that we must become the “reshoring nation”? You would not think so, because only weeks later his Ministers are embarking on a path that could lead the MOJ shared services centre into a contract that will allow offshoring. The Newport office employs about 1,000 staff in back-office functions. The Cabinet Office and the MOJ want to privatise those jobs, and so far nothing has been said by Ministers to alleviate fears. In fact, the Justice Secretary told me:

“To be a competitive and viable business…needs to be in line with other companies of this kind, which often see non-customer facing transactional roles being sourced offshore. The creation and operation model…reflects government guidelines with off shoring being a feature of many successful public sector contracts.”

If the Prime Minister is so keen on private companies reshoring jobs, why is his Government so keen on offshoring Government jobs? The situation is ludicrous. Will Welsh Ministers tell the Cabinet Office and the Justice Secretary that, especially in the light of other job losses in Newport, these are good public sector jobs that we really need to keep in Newport?

To end on a positive note, the Welsh Government’s deal with Pinewood Studios to bring a new film studio to Newport is very welcome and a good boost to us locally, as is the Welsh Government’s setting up of the reNewport taskforce, which has recently come up with lots of innovative ideas for improving things in Newport. It has been warmly welcomed and has harnessed much local enthusiasm.

Last but not least, I welcome the announcement about the NATO summit in September. We are looking forward to that and I am also looking forward to working very closely with Wales Office Ministers to maximise its impact on the community and employers of Newport.

15:53

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and his colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), for making the application to the Backbench Business Committee. I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) said this morning during business questions and what the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) has said about the need to re-establish this as an annual debate on important matters in Wales, ideally as close as possible to the day we celebrate our patron saint.

This year, the promenade in Aberystwyth may be rather more familiar to Members as a result of the media interest in the storms that lashed the west Wales coast. Not just Aberystwyth was affected; Borth, Clarach, Aberaeron, Llangrannog and Cardigan all faced the brunt of the storms. I take this opportunity to thank all those in our communities—the voluntary sector, council workers, the emergency services—who did such sterling work to get us back on our feet. One Saturday morning stands out: 150 local residents physically cleared debris off the promenade to make it smart again.

I thank the Welsh Assembly Government for their response: as the Minister responsible, Alun Davies quickly came to see what was going on; £1.5 million has been pledged to the county for renovating the promenade; and Mrs Hart and Mrs Hutt have announced £560,000 for promoting the tourist sector. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I know took a great interest in what was going on. He has been in touch with the county council in relation to military support being made available when storms hit again, which has also been much appreciated.

At the time, there was much local speculation about whether funding would be forthcoming from the EU solidarity fund, and I asked a question in the House about that. It would be useful if the Secretary of State clarified whether a request was ever made by the Welsh Assembly Government to access European funds, whether the substantive fund or the regional fund. I go further to suggest that if we believe in devolution—and I very much do—the responsibility for such matters as flood protection and the alleviation of flood damage rests with the National Assembly for Wales, so should the Welsh Assembly Government simply wait for the Westminster Government to act, if they can under European Union criteria, or should they make a request? I am not sure whether such a request has been made, but either way, the resources made available by the Welsh Assembly Government to Ceredigion have been much welcomed, as, I repeat, has been the interest shown by the Secretary of State.

Ceredigion is open for business—the promenade in Aberystwyth is open for business—and like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, I want to use this opportunity to talk about the tourist sector. We are all aware of the triangular tour made by visitors to Britain—a few days in London, off to Edinburgh, down to Stratford-on-Avon and back to London before jetting off home to wherever they have come from. Somehow, Wales is often overlooked in the tourist sector. If that is a problem for Wales generally, it is certainly a problem for those of us on the periphery of Wales. Despite our coastal path, the agri-tourism sector and the beauty of the Cambrian mountains, generating tourism is a real challenge, partly because of transport infrastructure, but also because of the costs to visitors.

That matter needs to be set in the context of the importance of tourism and the real potential for growth. Some 3,000 jobs in my constituency are dependent on tourism. The potential for growth was identified by a British Hospitality Association report, appropriately subtitled, “Driving local economies and underpinning communities”, which suggested a 5% cut in VAT for the hospitality sector. That issue is not unique to Wales, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—I emphasise the hon. Friend—who said that he will look at the effect of making a 5% cut across the whole United Kingdom. He is right that we need to do that, and I urge Welsh Ministers to make that case for the United Kingdom to their colleagues in the Treasury. It has been estimated that we could create another 2,000 jobs in my constituency and another 20,000 jobs across Wales by 2020. There is huge potential, but Wales of course relies on tourist industry jobs: 8.3% of our jobs in Ceredigion and 8% of our jobs in Wales are dependent on the tourist sector. There are precedents, not least in Europe, where 24 of the 28 member states have such a policy.

[Hywel Williams]

Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the extra tax take that would accrue to the UK Government from the employment of those extra people?

[Mr Mark Williams]

I have not made any such assessment, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard for the debate on VAT and tourism in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago, he will see the figures that were produced. There will of course be a hit on the UK economy in the first year, but we need to consider the gains that will accrue thereafter. I most strongly commend that point to my Front-Bench colleagues.

I want briefly to talk about rurality in general, and the extent to which the rural dimension is considered by policy makers in Whitehall. I must say that the Welsh case is strongly represented throughout Whitehall by Welsh Ministers, but the rural dimension can sometimes be overlooked. For example, accessing work capability assessments is a challenge in rural areas such as mine, where there is limited public transport. I suggest that a disproportionate number of my constituents have missed appointments and suffered penalties as a consequence of living in rural areas.

We have lost tax offices. Aberystwyth lost its tax office under the last Labour Government and is now losing its tax advice centre. Instead, west Wales will be served by a roving team of experts from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We are losing face-to-face contact and expertise on the ground. It was anticipated that VAT returns would be made to HMRC online, but 20% of my constituency is yet to get broadband.

The hon. Member for Monmouth rightly raised concerns about the health service. We have lost our consultant and midwife unit, which is something that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) will relate to. The Welsh Labour Government are much more interested in the urban agenda than in the challenges that we face in mid and west Wales.

We could talk endlessly and there are many more points that I want to make. I hope that we have such a debate again, particularly so that there is another opportunity to talk about rural Wales.

16:00

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is the first time that you have called me to speak in a debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, so may I congratulate you, somewhat belatedly, on your elevation to the Chair?

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

You smoothie.

[Chris Evans]

Thank you very much.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who is not in his place, I bemoan the lack of the St David’s day debate, which has been held since 1944. When Aneurin Bevan spoke in this place in 1944, he said that there were no Welsh problems, only problems. The wonderful thing about the Welsh day debate that we are missing is that it allows us to bring up issues that usually go unnoticed in this House. Today, I will bring up the issue of truancy in schools.

Truancy is not simply a matter for schools; increasingly, it affects the whole of society. It is a complex issue. It is not simply about pupils skipping school to go to the park with their friends, but is often a sign of deeper problems at home and, in some cases, of abuse. If a pupil truants from school often enough, they will be excluded. They will thereby miss out not only on a worthwhile education, but on the support network that schools provide. That can result in people falling in with the wrong crowd and getting into trouble with the police, making them less desirable to potential employers.

When I visit schools in my constituency, I am always impressed by the level of pastoral care that students receive. Head teachers have told me that for some students, that care is arguably more important than traditional classes. For many students, the support that they receive in school is invaluable. That is why exclusions and truancy are serious issues.

Over the past few years, the Welsh Government have done an incredible amount of work to prevent schoolchildren from being permanently excluded. Just 102 pupils were permanently removed from Welsh schools last year, which is almost 100 fewer than in 2009-10, when there were 200 exclusions. That is a step in the right direction. However, I will focus today on what is known as “soft exclusion”.

The number of temporary exclusions is still too high. There were 17,508 temporary exclusions in 2011-12 in Wales alone. More research and data are needed to explain why that is occurring. In October 2009, my predecessor, Lord Touhig, asked a parliamentary question about what research the previous Government had done on the effects of exclusion on pupils. He was told that no research had been commissioned. Sadly, that is still the case. What do young people do when they are excluded temporarily? Do they miss out on work? In reality, we just do not know.

In preparation for this debate, I read a report by the charity, Barnardo’s, which did some research on the use of unlawful exclusions. That is when schools ask parents to keep their children away from school without providing a formal notification of exclusion. Local authorities know nothing about such exclusions. There is obviously not a huge amount of data in this area, which is unfortunate, but the Barnardo’s study is based on anecdotal evidence.

I shall quote from the report. One parent said:

“From year 7 the head of year would phone me to say he’d been excluded, but no time scale would be mentioned. A letter would arrive two days later telling me how many days it was. There was no work set or given.”

The report heard evidence from parents of a lack of dialogue between schools and families, which leaves the pupils falling behind. One parent said:

“The head of year would ring me and say they were thinking of excluding him. Sometimes there would be a letter. It takes two days or more to arrive and it would say work would be set two days after that, but by then the exclusion time would have passed.”

The police in Blackwood say that the problems in the market area are caused mainly by young people who have been excluded, whether temporarily or permanently. That demonstrates the drain on police resources and the wider effect that this issue has on society. I was even alarmed to find, shockingly and tragically, that pupils with special needs accounted for a little over 60% of all exclusions in Wales in 2012-13, and those with school action and school action plus special educational needs had the highest rate of permanent exclusions at 0.6% per 1,000 pupils. A report by the charity Ambitious about Autism found that four in 10 children with autism had been informally excluded temporarily.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman raises extremely important points. Does he share my concern that some local authorities in Wales have a policy not to statement children? The statementing of children can be extremely important in some cases, to provide the right level of support that will ultimately prevent exclusion in special needs cases.

[Chris Evans]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is the point I was trying to make. There is a lack of research and data, and if more children were statemented and we knew what was going on, we would be able to address the issue.

If such things are happening on a large scale, the Government need to look into it and investigate further. Why is it happening? Is it because schools are not equipped to deal with autistic young people? The Barnardo’s report I mentioned earlier contained a statement from a parent with an autistic child:

“There are teachers who manage him fine, and those who don’t sympathise with his situation. Sending him home for 3 days is not the best option and there’s no discussion of strategies for managing his behaviour. Reasons vary, but generally he’s sent home once every 3 weeks.”

In my constituency we are extremely fortunate to have an excellent autism unit at Risca community comprehensive, and the support students receive is fantastic. The same is also true of Coleg Gwent at Crosskeys, where pupils go on to become independent live-in students. Perhaps there are areas across the country not so fortunate, but excluding children from schools on the basis that staff cannot cater to their needs is to me completely unacceptable. What concerns me is that no data on these informal exclusions are held centrally. I would like some form of Government investigation into how prevalent the issue is in schools, not only in Wales, but across the UK.

How vast is the problem? It seems to me that we simply do not know, although we do know that more than 10% of 16 to 18-year-olds are not in employment, education or training, compared with 23% of 19 to 24-year-olds. To me, those figures are unacceptable. It is all very well trying to score political points, as some of us have tried to do today, but we must understand why the figures are so high.

Charities and organisations understand this problem much better than I do. Catch22 is a social business that does an excellent job of getting young people into the habit of attending school and following a schedule. Speak to Catch22 and it will say that when young people play truant and eventually drop out of the mainstream education system, it is important that their aspirations are rebuilt and that character and resilience are developed. Those are interesting ideas, and the Government need to work closely with those fantastic organisations to find a long-term solution to the problem.

With so many young people leaving school with no future plans, we must think about how we can create opportunities for people who may have fallen out of mainstream education. No Member of this House wants young people to be excluded from school and never to reintegrate into society, and there are apprenticeship schemes that focus not on academic achievement but on learning a genuine worthwhile skill that will help a participant stay in work for years.

In my constituency, I speak all the time to businesses with excellent apprenticeship schemes. Last week I met Hafod Quarry in Abercarn, which told me about a five-year scheme that essentially guarantees employment in the industry for many years. Pensord Press in Pontllanfraith and Joyner PA in Risca offer similar apprenticeships that develop skills and lead to full-time work. There are, however, businesses that have told me that they cannot recruit young people locally because they do not have the so-called “soft skills” of communication, turning up on time and completing tasks. Those who played truant and left the education system at an early age are most likely to struggle with those essential skills. If someone without those skills is put in front of an interviewer, they simply will not get the job. That is why it is so important we get the issue right now.

Our education system needs to set up Welsh youngsters for the future, and I do not think unlawful exclusions are part of that. I would like something that my predecessor asked the previous Labour Government for almost five years ago—concrete data and a definitive study into levels of exclusion in schools and the reasons for truancy. Without that we are doing our young people a disservice. In light of the evidence available, expulsion should be the last resort while all avenues are investigated to address unacceptable behaviour in our schools.

16:09

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I rise to speak as a passionate Welshman who enjoys Welsh history, our proud culture and the contribution that many Welshmen have made to the history of Wales, the UK and beyond. I will try to be positive, and I will ask my questions in a positive spirit.

Whatever people’s opinions of devolution in 1997 after the referendum, there was a genuine hope across all political parties that devolution would work and make a difference. It provided a great chance to make a difference and develop a Government who could respond to changing needs, react to problems as they emerged, and take decisions much closer to the electorate.

My main subject today will be the reputation of Wales, my worry that its governance is damaging that reputation and the consequences of such damage. It is easy to say, after one four-year term of governance, that reforms were established but there has not been enough opportunity to see the outcomes and benefits. After a second term, that argument gets somewhat weaker and we would expect to see some benefits. But after nearly 15 years, we should really be seeing some positive outcome from devolution, such as the “devolution dividend” as it was called at one time.

Sadly, in so many areas, if not almost all areas—I am trying to think of one where I am wrong—the relative position of Wales has fallen back, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not want to be party political in making that point, but I seek an acceptance that Wales is now the poorest part of the UK. That was not the case before 1997. As a result, the challenge of attracting investment and creating entrepreneurship is so much greater. It is so much more difficult to attract investment to the poorest part of the UK, because the gross domestic product and the value of the spend is not as high. The reputation of Wales is therefore key.

[Roger Williams]

I am following my hon. Friend’s argument closely. Does he agree that part of the problem is that Wales has a legacy of ill health from heavy industry and a legacy of economic inactivity because of the loss of those industries? That has never been reflected in the Barnett formula so those needs are still unmet in Wales.

[Alun Cairns]

I accept part of that, but I would also look to areas that have a similar legacy but are not the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. Those are the very same points that, it was argued, would be corrected by Adminstrations that would take decisions much closer to the people. I speak as a pro-devolutionist—I am not against the institution, I am against the governance, the way in which the institution has worked and how policy has been set.

[David T. C. Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, are poorer than Wales, but achieve better outcomes in areas such as education? It must be partly, if not wholly, the responsibility of the Government of the Welsh Assembly that things are so bad there.

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is right, because a culture developed in which everything was judged by the amount of money that was put into it, rather than the outcomes that were derived from the investment.

When we talk about reputation, we need to accept that the way in which Wales is currently reported is not positive. I am very saddened by that, but it is largely because the column inches in the press tend to focus on health and education. They are essential to attracting inward investment, because middle and senior management would have to use the national health service and send their children to the schools. That must be added to the way in which Wales is perceived and the challenge that we have in attracting investment thereafter.

Let us focus on education, because without doubt a nation’s future is built on the quality of its education. In the past few years alone, there has been a determination to develop different qualifications, sometimes for the sake of being different, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) mentioned earlier. When there was a drive to introduce greater rigour in GCSE outcomes, in Wales we saw political intervention. In England, politics was kept out of it completely, and the policy direction was set for greater rigour and stronger assessments of standards. In Wales, there was a determination to change that.

What worries me most, as the father of a 10-year-old, is that qualifications in Wales could be seen to be secondary to their counterparts in England. I really hope that, for those who gained GCSE qualifications last year, employers will accept Welsh qualifications as being of the same standard as those in England. However, there was an upgrade in more than 1,000 cases, and that may make employers and higher education institutions question them. For example, the Welsh baccalaureate is not accepted by some universities, and that is sad. That reputational damage is now being perpetuated by the outcomes of what the programme for international student assessment judged to be tragically lower standards. As we seek to attract investment to turn the economy around, the quality of public services is essential.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I hope the hon. Gentleman does not feel that I am just trying to look on the positive side, but he must be aware that Cardiff university is a Russell Group university and that it accepts students from the Welsh education system. It also has two Nobel laureate prize winners.

[Alun Cairns]

Cardiff university is a fantastic university. The funding structure in Wales is starving the university of funding, as compared to its counterparts in England. The question we need to be asking ourselves is this: how can Cardiff university maintain its standards and status when, because of the different funding structure, there is more funding going into higher education in Wales? That is another sign of the reputational damage being caused by the decisions that are being taken.

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to show some respect for devolution, but could he be a little more impartial with the facts he employs? Will he tell us, for example, whether he accepts that the Welsh Government should be congratulated on a fall of just 250 in the number of students applying to university in Wales, when the fall in England has been 25,000—a hundredfold difference?

[Alun Cairns]

That is the sort of response that does not get us anywhere. I am looking for an intelligent debate to accept the reality of the situation. Unless we accept the reality, we cannot take the intelligent decisions needed to make changes.

In the time that remains, I want to mention health. I had hoped that yesterday was a turning point. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made an extremely powerful contribution to the debate yesterday. Two weeks earlier, we had learned of data she had brought to the attention of Professor Sir Bruce Keogh. He wrote to his counterpart in Wales, seeking to probe the data that had been shared with him. The response came from a politician, rather than a clinician, who was furious and said that this was an attempt by the Conservative party to

“drag Welsh NHS through the mud”.

The reality, however, is that Sir Bruce Keogh stated in the e-mail that he did not know enough about it, but thought there was a potential smokescreen. There needs to be an intelligent debate, otherwise its reputation will be damaged further.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members will be aware that this has been a lively debate with many interventions. Interventions lengthen speeches, however. If everyone is to have the chance to speak this afternoon, I have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

16:19

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to speak in this St David’s day debate.

Let me remind the House, as I like to on these occasions, of the strengths of Blaenau Gwent and the challenges that it faces. We have a proud cultural and political heritage. We gave the United Kingdom its precious national health service, and we have a strong record of serving our country in the armed forces. The Brecon Beacons national park is on our doorstep, and our industrial legacy of coal and steel is a proud one. Yet in the last decade there has been no alternative large-scale industry to take the place of steel and coal. There has been investment in transport, health and education, but our readiness for development has been cruelly coincidental with a worldwide recession and a reduction in the public sector employment that has been so important in Wales. We know that our Welsh valleys communities are resilient and look after their own, but we need jobs.

I want to talk about transport, jobs and education. The year 2014 has not brought the glad tidings for which we hoped. Unemployment has risen, and Government action is needed to deliver the jobs and growth that will secure our economic recovery. The heads of the valleys line has been greatly improved in recent years, but work is still needed on the Gilwern to Brynmawr section. The council and the Welsh Government have reopened the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff railway line, but it needs to be electrified and redoubled. In December I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury if he would consider bringing forward the electrification of the south Wales valleys lines, but we have heard nothing so far.

[Chris Evans]

My hon. Friend uses the Ebbw Valley railway when he travels through my constituency. Does he agree that if we are to bring jobs and growth to the valleys in constituencies such as ours, the lines must be electrified as a matter of urgency?

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

Another important rail improvement is a new spur line to Abertillery. On Facebook this week, I was told that

“the youngsters in Abertillery need to be given the same access to employment as young people everywhere. The rail link is vital for the valley.”

I find the young people in Blaenau Gwent eager to work, but lacking in opportunity and experience. Along with the local jobcentre, I shall be hosting a seminar later this month for local employers, much as my hon. Friend did. I hope that they will sign up to offer work experience to our under 21s. The longer people are out of work, the more difficult it is for them to find work again and make ends meet.

As might be expected, when investors do come to Blaenau Gwent with a project, we take it seriously. The proposed development of a motor sport facility, the Circuit of Wales, in my constituency represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. When I first heard the proposal for a racing track in the clouds I was sceptical, but having now watched “Top Gear” too often, I have a better understanding of the petrolheads who want an exciting circuit rather than an old airfield track.

It is, of course, important for the business plan for the circuit to stand up to scrutiny, and the Welsh Government have done the due diligence on it, but because of planning complications, there is a delay. Although this will be a largely private sector investment, United Kingdom Government support is still needed. The Welsh Secretary—fair dos—has repeatedly indicated support for the Circuit of Wales, but it still has no Treasury support. The Circuit of Wales developers believe that the UK has underinvested in motorsport infrastructure, as they foresee a significant demand for new facilities to meet the needs of modern motor sports. They are working hard to recruit the investors who are needed for this £250 million, 800-acre proposal. That is the key test. The developers now need to put together a portfolio of financial support, and they have my wholehearted backing for that endeavour. I hope that the Minister will continue to be positive about the proposal, especially in view of the Government’s proposal for a new public-private partnership.

Finally, let me stress the importance of education, which is paramount if we are to look forward to a brighter future in Blaenau Gwent. Our education system must give all pupils the tools that will enable them to succeed, in Wales and in our global world. If Blaenau Gwent is to enjoy the 21st century, we need investment across the board, and that means improved transport, sustainable jobs, and a first-class education system.

16:25

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

St David famously instructed his followers on his deathbed to do the little things, and he probably understood that I would have only four minutes to speak, so I shall focus my comments on two steps that I would like to see in the forthcoming Budget. I have confidence that one of them will be in it because it was announced in the autumn statement: two reductions in employer national insurance contributions. In my constituency between January 2013 and January 2014 unemployment fell from just over 900 to just over 600, but more importantly the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who were unemployed and claiming benefit fell from just over 300 to just over 200. However, that does not hide the anxiety of those who are desperate to get into employment and are still finding it difficult to do so.

One of the reductions in employer NICs is to reduce every business’s contribution by £2,000. That will be especially advantageous to small businesses, which are so typical of rural Wales. In particular it will encourage those who are perhaps sole traders—just one-man or one-woman bands—to take on their first employee. I am hoping that will encourage them to do so.

The other reduction in employer NICs is that no employer contributions will be paid for employees who are under 21. That will be a great incentive for businesses to take on young people, and in particular apprentices—and this week is apprenticeship week.

I am confident that that measure will be in the Budget, and I am given to understand that the other measure might also be in it. I therefore ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to insist it is kept in the Budget if they see it any draft documents. I have raised on a number of occasions the plight of people who are off-grid—who do not get mains gas. Their energy costs are very high because mains gas is the cheapest form of fuel. Instead, they have to depend on heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, solid fuel and sometimes electricity to heat their homes. Also, they do not get the dual fuel tariffs that people who receive both gas and electricity on the grid can benefit from. I understand that giving some respite to people who are off-grid may be considered, and I can make some suggestions in that regard. One of them is to give a subsidy so that the national grid can connect those communities that do not have the benefit of mains gas. All the communities of Howey, Llangynidr, Abercraf and Talgarth in my constituency would greatly benefit from mains gas, and that would have a great input into reducing fuel poverty.

16:28

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

Carmarthenshire has a very proud history. Some say it has a claim to be the birthplace of Welsh democracy, which is a reference to Carmarthenshire’s role in delivering a yes vote for the National Assembly in the successful 1997 referendum. However, a dark cloud has been hanging over local democracy in Carmarthenshire for far too long, with a ruling cabal of senior officials and executive board members repressively running the council, stopping democratic debate by the full council, pressurising local journalists, smearing opposition politicians, coercing a council chair who dared defy instruction and making financial arrangements to enable the chief executive, a man who earns almost £4,000 a week, to avoid paying his fair share of tax. A seemingly permanent back-room deal between Labour and so-called independent councillors—or the closet Tories as the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) describes them—means elections are unlikely to lead to political change. At the last local authority elections, my party won the largest number of seats convincingly, achieving over 10,000 more votes than our Labour opponents. It is the same discredited personnel at the helm, however.

Given the number of mentions that Carmarthenshire has had in the Private Eye “Rotten Boroughs” column, one might think that the executive board members would have got the message. However, unrepentant, the council and the executive board are moving towards darker waters. That is what happens when we have a toxic combination of weak executive board councillors and powerful senior officers. The warnings relating to recent events could not have been clearer. Local papers have lost advertising revenue, which could bankrupt their businesses, for daring to criticise executive board decisions. We have seen the steady erosion of the democratic process, with powers being taken away from councillors and put into the hands of unelected officers, and with the executive board rubber-stamping decisions and, to all intents and purposes, operating as the political wing of those senior officers.

In the past month, a report from the independent Wales Audit Office has found that the executive board was guilty of sanctioning two unlawful payments for the benefit of the chief executive. Those payments totalled more than £50,000. One relates to the granting of a legal indemnity which enabled the chief executive to counter-sue a local blogger. The second relates to a tax dodge involving the redirection of pension contributions into the pocket of the chief executive. The report was damning, and any politician with a sense of integrity would have done the honourable thing and instigated an urgent investigation into the implicated officers before resigning on the spot themselves. Instead, we got a deliberate propaganda campaign from the publicly financed press department of the council to discredit the Wales Audit Office, and threats and smears against opposition politicians.

Last week, the people of Carmarthenshire were subjected to a farcical extraordinary meeting to discuss the Wales Audit Office report. The executive board commissioned a QC, at a potential cost of thousands of pounds to Carmarthenshire ratepayers, to discredit the Wales Audit Office’s findings and protect its leaders from votes of no confidence.

This has all been happening at a time when the executive board is pushing through huge cuts to council services and increasing council tax by almost 5%. The Labour party in Carmarthenshire is pushing through the privatisation of care services, increasing charges for school meals, reducing assessments for children with special needs, making financial cuts to welfare advice services and extending and increasing charges for social care, as well as introducing a range of other regressive measures.

It is a matter of pressing concern that, despite being relieved of his duties, the chief executive of Carmarthenshire county council will continue to be the local returning officer for the forthcoming European elections. The Electoral Commission has confirmed that position. I fail to understand how an individual who is no longer at his desk due to a police investigation can be responsible for the democratic processes in my county. The same applies in Pembrokeshire, unless events in that great county have changed the situation today, and I ask for immediate ministerial intervention.

15:21

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this debate, and I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has just said.

My party wants Wales to be an independent country. We know that will take time—we just have to accept that—but that is no reason to abandon the aim. Some Members will be familiar with the Welsh saying, “Ara’ deg mae dal iâr”, which means “You catch hens slowly.” We, the Welsh, have been here on these islands for a very long time—independent for most of the centuries, incorporated for the rest—and we are not going anywhere any time soon. We therefore need to discuss this among ourselves, as a self-aware nation, and agree on what power we want.

In this context, the examples from the mainland of Europe and from Scotland are useful and instructive. Last night, I was talking to the Catalan counsel general. The Catalans have been told by Madrid that they cannot hold a referendum on independence. One Spanish politician went so far as to threaten them with military occupation if they dared to press for their freedom. So hundreds of individual communes have instead held local referendums, which demonstrated overwhelming support for independence. We also saw the extraordinary demonstration in Barcelona last year, when more than 1 million people crowded the streets of the capital to call for independence. A national referendum is due there in the autumn, and we will watch the outcome with interest. I have also been talking to the Basques. There, the peace process has made great strides, but the Government in Madrid are now dragging their heels. Getting the peace process on track there is vital to greater autonomy, which is perhaps why the Madrid Government are acting in that way.

In Scotland, to the disgust and dismay of some politicians in this place and commentators in the City, and to the delight of others, our colleagues in the Scottish National party are defining what it means to rule themselves while retaining an inter-dependence of equals in these islands and on this continent. The SNP’s opponents cry, “Foul! Not fair! If you want independence it must be on our terms.” Politics and international politics are about negotiation, as we are seeing in Paris and Brussels today. In Wales, we have a problem with taking responsibility—some of us are too resigned to being victims. I will say this for now: power to spend without the responsibility of raising the money is corrosive, as we have seen in Wales, and to the extent that the draft Wales Bill leads us to take responsibility for ourselves it is much to be welcomed.

The shadow Secretary of State, speaking as a historian, said of the decline of Wales:

“I attribute it to 150 years of history, industry, the legacy of change, the demographics of our country, the distance from London and the simple truth that Wales has a greater relative need than many parts of England, which requires a greater degree of expenditure.”—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 23 January 2013; c.21.]

That is all very germane, but hon. Members will have noted immediately that this statement contains no agency. These woes appear have been visited upon us passively— by accident almost. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is not unsophisticated; he knows full well that historical events do not just happen. So I look forward to our debates on the Wales Bill and perhaps a more piercing analysis of our predicament from those on the Opposition Front Bench. Who knows, a clearer analysis might even lead them to change their stance, which is seen by many here and in Wales as one of delay at all costs.

15:21

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

This is the Welsh affairs debate, but we are also today considering the role of women, so I wish to spend time looking at the role of women in Wales. MPs had the opportunity today to invite a young person—a young girl—from our constituency to join us, to shadow politicians and to see how we worked. That is very important and Amy Edwards, a young girl from Bryntiriion comprehensive school in Bridgend, spent the day with me. I asked that school to send someone because I was particularly impressed by the young girls there and their eagerness to participate in political discussion and debate, and to ask for more information and to gain greater understanding.

I was horrified when I saw the Equality and Human Rights Commission report “Who runs Wales?” I do not know how many hon. Members have seen it, but it sets out a clear message that Wales remains a country where those taking the major decisions that have an impact on all of us remain, overwhelmingly, men. We need to set clear targets for public and private sector board appointments. We need to make sure that our women are educated so that they can take on the positions; so that different issues will be discussed and different viewpoints heard; so that we reflect the whole of the population of Wales; and so that politicians are in tune with the population we serve. We have a wealth of talent in Wales, but sadly we are still neglecting nearly 50% of it.

In Wales, only 28% of police officers are women, but it gets worse at the top, where only 12% of chief constables are women; 77% of those working in health are women, but only 10% of health chief executives are women; 72% of people in local authorities are women, but only 18% of local authority chief executives are women. Teaching is no way to the top for women either, because 75% of all schoolteachers are women, but only 57% of head teachers are women. Even in the third sector only 36% of the leadership are women. The media are no better, with only 33% of senior management teams being women and only 22% of the editors of our daily newspapers and weekly nationals being women. The figure for the trade unions is only 36%. We must recognise that in the history of Welsh politics—since 1536—there have been only 13 female MPs. It is only because the Labour party used all-women shortlists that Labour has now increased its number of female MPs. Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, from whom we have heard a great deal today about their aspirations for Wales, have never had a woman MP for Wales.

We are about to lose two important women MPs from the Labour Benches. I look forward to having two, if not more, female MPs representing Wales, so that the voice of the women in Wales can be heard from these Benches and we can clearly represent the whole of Wales.

16:40

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this debate today. It has been an extraordinarily wide-ranging debate, as is traditionally the case with St David’s day debates. Many Members rightly highlighted the importance of having time in this House to debate the issues of Wales. I think that we can all agree that in the past three years, insufficient time has been spent on debating Welsh matters. Ignorance of the realities in Wales has perhaps grown in this House as a result. I hope that we have done something today to redress that imbalance and to shed some light on the issues, as I hope to do in my short remarks.

My hon. Friend made a particularly enlightening and topical opening to today’s debate. He talked about the need to reflect the fact that people in Wales have shared identities in that they are both Welsh citizens and British citizens. Indeed, they can play rugby for Wales and for the British Lions—they can captain either team and still feel themselves to be British and Welsh. That is something that I feel very strongly about and that I hope everyone in this House supports. My hon. Friend also said that we need to capitalise on the great economic strengths of our country, and especially on the energy and tourism potential of Wales. I entirely endorse all that he said in that regard.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) reminded us of the history of the St David’s day debate. He even told us that this was the day of St Colette, the patron saint of pregnant women. At this point, I cannot help but congratulate Kate Groucutt, who is pregnant and leaving my office. She has been the special adviser to the Welsh Affairs team over the past few years.

More importantly, but slightly surreally, my right hon. Friend talked about the problems in his constituency of head shops, which sell legal highs. The problem is massive and growing in communities such as his and mine, and we must get to grips with it notwithstanding the difficulties of legislating in this complicated area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about the economy of Wales, and highlighted two issues in her constituency that have wider implications and ramifications across the UK. The first was the loss of steel jobs at the Orb works, due to the inordinately high energy prices that companies in Britain are paying compared with their European competitors. I am sure that we all understand that we need to get to grips with that matter not just for individual consumers of energy in this country but for vital foundational industries.

The second was the problem of offshore jobs. My hon. Friend highlighted the irony of a Government who claim to be seeking to reshore jobs overseeing the offshoring of Government jobs in the Ministry of Justice shared services centre in Newport. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is what is happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) raised the important issue of truancy and called for improvements in the way in which our schools deal with challenging children in Britain, and I entirely agree with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) also talked about the economy and threw his weight behind the proposal for a motor sport track and arena in Blaenau Gwent, and I support him on that, as I know the Secretary of State does. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) talked about women in Wales and the need for others to promote the talents of women within Wales. She highlighted the fact that the Labour party has done that in the National Assembly, where women make up almost 45% of all groups, and here in Westminster, where the Labour party stands alone in having a significant proportion of female members—32% of the current parliamentary Labour party. We need more, but it is a good start and better than what we are seeing from the Government.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) talked about local government and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) talked about devolution and suggested that I should be sophisticated and enlightening when addressing it myself, and I shall seek to do so at an appropriate moment.

Government Members told us that they wanted to be respectful and positive—I think those were the words—about Wales and then failed to offer a single respectful and positive word; that was certainly the case for the Conservative Members. There were a number of positive remarks made by Liberal Democrat Members, such as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who congratulated the Welsh Government on their investment in flood defences in Wales; £4 million has been invested, in distinct contradiction to the direction of travel in Westminster where we have seen £97 million cut from flood defences, as confirmed last week by the Office for National Statistics. Perhaps that is why we did not see the same degree of problems in Wales as we did elsewhere.

The hon. Members for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) were particularly jaundiced in their view of Wales and highlighted the volume of column inches about what they saw as poor public service performance. They bemoaned the fact that Wales was getting such bad press, but they know full well why Wales is getting a bad press and it is not because of the performance of Welsh public services and certainly not a fair representation—

[Alun Cairns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I am not going to give way—[Interruption.] No, I will not give way, because I—[Interruption.] Okay, I will give way once.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but mortality rates, cancer waiting times and A and E access are just three examples; diagnostics in the health service are another. Those are fundamental issues that are dominating the UK newspapers because of poor performance in Wales. Is that not a sad situation?

[Owen Smith]

If the hon. Gentlemen can point to a hospital in Wales in which there are higher levels of unexpected mortality than he thinks there ought to be, I will listen seriously to him. However, he has not offered that—

[Alun Cairns]

The Princess of Wales.

[Owen Smith]

He says the Princess of Wales, where risk adjusted mortality indices improved by more than 20% over the past three years. We have seen significant improvements in mortality indices in Wales and he will know that people cannot do what he and his colleagues have done—and worse, what the Prime Minister has done on 29 occasions in this House—and take out of context extraordinarily complex mortality statistics and use them as a means to smear the Welsh NHS. Only this week, I was confronted with the reality of that smear campaign when I was contacted by members of the Welsh NHS work force to ask me—

[Alun Cairns]

The unions.

[Owen Smith]

No, it was not a union. Somebody working in the NHS contacted me on their own behalf to ask what they could do to stop the Tories’ smear campaign dragging the reputation of the Welsh NHS through the mud. Members do not need to take my word for it; they could take the words of doctors in Wales. The British Medical Association in Wales said very clearly that this was “a wicked”—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary says from a sedentary position that this is about the trade unions, implying that it is somehow connected to the Labour party. He knows that that is not the case; he knows—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We do not raise matters from a sedentary position. The hon. Gentleman is about to conclude.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The BMA has said that the claims are a “wicked slander”, perpetrated by people in whose interests it is to undermine the NHS, to perpetuate the myth that there is significantly worse performance in the NHS in Wales, compared with England. It is not true, it has not been true in the past and it will not be true in the future. What is true is that Welsh workers and the Welsh people are suffering lower wages, higher job insecurity, higher energy prices and greater difficulties as a result of this Government’s economic mismanagement of this country. In contrast, the Labour Government in Wales have delivered economically. They have delivered a lower unemployment rate in Wales than in the UK as a whole. I conclude by congratulating them on that.

16:50

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a belated happy St David’s day? It is, in fact, the end of St David’s week. I commend the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for recognising the importance of having such a debate and securing it. I echo what he said about the importance of being proud of our dual national identity—being both Welsh and British. It is something he understands, I understand, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) understands and clearly, and most importantly, Sam Warburton understands.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn focused his contribution largely on the economy, and rightly so. One of the joys of this office is that I have the privilege of travelling the length and breadth of Wales, meeting some of our world-leading companies, visiting the small and medium-sized enterprises that are very much the backbone of our economy and hearing inspirational stories of lives that have been transformed by securing employment.

Wales has a proud industrial history. At the height of the industrial revolution, Wales was at the forefront of technological advances. It retains many innovative industries, from large multinationals, such as Airbus and Tata Steel, to small but dynamic niche market companies, such as Torquing in Pembroke Dock. We must have a thriving private sector, confident to create employment opportunities, innovate and expand into new markets.

If Wales is to be a country where companies grow, invest and take on new people, the Government must create the right conditions to allow that to happen. That means cutting business taxes, reducing red tape and fixing the banking system. As a consequence of the measures we have put in place, corporation tax in the UK will be down to 20% in 2015, the lowest in the G20, and our red tape challenge means that by the end of this Parliament there will be fewer regulatory burdens on businesses than there were when we came to power in 2010. All that is good for Welsh businesses, but if we are really to succeed, we need the Welsh Government to work with us here in Westminster.

In order to compete in a global market, we must also ensure that Wales has a highly skilled and educated work force. However, the recent PISA results, which my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) quite properly touched on, show that in education Wales is sadly falling further behind the rest of the UK and is internationally uncompetitive. The First Minister recently admitted that the Welsh Government had taken their eye off the ball on education in Wales. Well, admission of fault is a start, but what parents and employers now want to see, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan said, is an early start on improving educational outcomes in Wales.

Crucial to economic success is infrastructure. This Government recognise the importance of high-quality infrastructure in a modern economy. Despite the difficult economic circumstances we inherited, we have made it a priority to invest in infrastructure upgrade. We have invested in energy, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn kindly acknowledged, in transport infrastructure, with the electrification of the south Wales railway lines, and in first-class broadband, with an announcement of £57 million of investment and, most recently, another £12 million to ensure that the hardest-to-reach locations will be served. Once completed, we will have achieved a truly remarkable transformation. Wales will be part of one of the finest broadband networks in Europe.

Hon. Members made a number of important points that I would like to deal with as far as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth is concerned about more powers for the Welsh Assembly, which I found quite surprising, coming from him. Nevertheless, we will shortly introduce the Wales Bill, which will give additional powers to the Welsh Assembly and, most importantly, will introduce for the first time a degree of accountability on the part of the Welsh Government for the money they spend. That can only be a good thing, and was welcomed by several hon. Members.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) raised the important issue of legal highs. It is not new, and I remember raising precisely the same issue with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) when he was Home Secretary. This is a priority. We are working across Government and with delivery partners to tackle the elicit supply of and demand for legal highs. Legislation is only part of the solution and we are targeting those drugs on all fronts.

We are seeking to reduce demand by raising awareness of their dangers not only among those who take them, but among family members and parents in particular, making it difficult to obtain and supply them, and ensuring that statutory services can provide effective treatment and recovery. I do not in any way seek to downplay the significance of the problem. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) raised the issue of mid-Wales. He said that it needs better treatment, and that it is a battle to develop awareness of it. As someone who is married to a lady from mid-Wales, I would not seek to overlook that part of the world. I agree with him entirely about cross-border routes which, as he knows, we are working on.

The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) also spoke about legal highs, and raised the important issues of Avana bakeries and the Orb steelworks on which my office is engaged, as she knows. I fully understand the concern she expressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) raised the issue of the recent storm damage and specifically whether the Assembly Government had made a request for assistance under the EU solidarity fund. Some inquiries were made by the Assembly Government with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but no direct request for assistance was made.

The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) raised the important issue of exclusions. I refer him to a constituent of mine, Colette Ryan, a teacher at ysgol Emrys ap Iwan in Abergele and an inspirational lady. I would be pleased to discuss the matter with him at a later time.

There were other important contributions and I apologise to hon. Members for not dealing with them specifically because of shortage of time. I am sure that hon. Members across the House are united in their desire that Wales should become more prosperous, more successful and, most of all, that we should continue to be proud to be Welsh.

16:58

[Albert Owen]

May I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a canny Scot with an English constituency, for impartially overseeing our debate on Welsh affairs? I was proud to move the debate and to be a co-sponsor with the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who could not be with us today because of a pre-arranged engagement.

We had 12 Back-Bench contributions and two Front-Bench winding-up speeches, all of them valuable. The debate was over-subscribed, which is proof that we need an annual full-day Welsh debate in the House. The Leader of the House is in his place and taking the issues on board.

I teased the Chamber about the anti-European views of Conservative Back Benchers and the pro-independence view of Plaid Cymru. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) did not disappoint in his contribution. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) suggested that Welsh Members are victims. I see us as full participants, not victims in any way.

When the Secretary of State talked about broadband in Wales, he gave a great example of where the Welsh Government are leading on such matters, working with the UK Government, with funds from the European Union, and with the private sector. We are all working together for the good of Wales. We in this House must be proud of our Welshness and of the fact that we are an integral part of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, as well as pro-Europeans. In May, if you want a pro-Welsh, pro-British, pro-European party, vote Labour.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

Carpet Waste Fire (Thrunton)

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amber Rudd.)

17:00

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

The story I have to put to the Minister this afternoon is one of gross disregard for the environment and for my constituents, inadequate regulation by the Environment Agency, and deplorable political pressure on the authorities not to act to protect my constituents. In raising this issue, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the personal interest they have taken in it since I raised it with them.

A fire of carpet waste has burned for almost six months on the site of an old brickworks at Thrunton in my constituency. The site is alongside the busy A697, and adjoining or close to it are 26 houses, some of them built for the brickworks’ staff. Some time after it closed in 2010, the owner, Mr Blythe, who has done everything he could to help deal with the situation, made it available to Blackwater (North East) Ltd for waste carpet storage, relying on the company to obtain and comply with the necessary approvals.

During the afternoon of 3 September 2013, the waste carpet at Thrunton caught fire. Fire crews rushed to the scene and started trying to tackle the fire. There was an enormous amount of smoke from the fire, completely blocking the adjacent A697. Traffic was diverted. The stench could be smelled up to 15 miles away, beyond Alnwick and Rothbury. Local residents shut their windows and doors and were told to stay inside. The fire quickly spread to bales of carpet both inside and outside the buildings where they were stored. Pouring water on the fire was cooling the outer surface of the burning carpet, but then a hard crust was forming and the water was running off, leaving the fire alight inside the bales. The building that housed some of the bales, part of the former brickworks, partly collapsed. Due to the volume of water and the lie of the land, the water running off from the fire crews’ efforts was also threatening the neighbouring watercourses and fishing lake.

The bales of carpet had been stored outside the area where they were permitted to be kept, which meant that instead of being on a hard concrete area, they were on porous ground that could soak up the contaminated run-off water. That ground covers the natural aquifer where water collects and feeds the local spring, which supplies water to the properties at Thrunton. Such was the danger to this supply that the control team decided that the fire could not be put out and would have to be managed while it burned itself out. The fire was finally judged to be out in the second week of February 2014.

There have been regular inspections of the site by officers from Northumberland’s fire and rescue service, the Environment Agency, the environmental health department, and Public Health England, as well as my own staff. A misting system was installed to damp down the fire, but that was problematic, and there had been several attempts to get it in place before November.

The landowner, Mr Blythe, has been proactively managing the fire himself throughout. Wearing breathing apparatus and using a digger, he has, with the agreement of the fire service, removed the burnt material from the fire that is outside the building and dampened it in the pools of water which had run off from the fire. Paying a contractor to do this work would have cost tens of thousands of pounds. Without Mr Blythe’s efforts, it is thought that the fire could have burned for two years longer. The operating company did nothing. The fire inside the building continues to burn. A multi-agency incident control team was set up involving Northumberland’s environmental health department, the fire service, the Environment Agency, and Public Health England.

Residents naturally wanted to know what substances they were being exposed to, and what the short, medium and long-term effects could be. The assurances they were given were hard to accept when they were having to keep their windows and doors shut at all times, turn off ventilation systems, and make alternative arrangements for drying their washing. We repeatedly asked for smoke testing but did not get it until January, nearly five months after the fire broke out. This lengthy battle over different issues has added unnecessarily to the stress and worry for my constituents.

The burnt material remains on site, and there is a continuing risk of contamination of local watercourses. One of the ongoing issues throughout this sorry saga has been who takes responsibility for removing the burnt material. Throughout the process, residents have been assured that it would be removed. At one point the Environment Agency proposed that the cost of waste removal could be shared with the county council, but the county council argued that responsibility for issuing the permits and for monitoring and enforcing them was held by the Environment Agency and so it should act to deal with the consequences.

The landlord has been left with about 3,000 tonnes of burnt material. To clear the site would cost at least £200,000. It will cost £500,000 if the waste analysis code requires it to be treated as hazardous, which is not yet clear.

The Environment Agency has resisted all calls for it to take action to clear the site and charge Blackwater, the operator, with the cost. It argues that the site operator should be given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I fear there is little hope of that happening. What confidence can we have that Blackwater will do anything? It has done nothing at all to deal with the fire or the pollution it has caused.

I turn now to the Environment Agency’s lack of enforcement of permit conditions. Blackwater’s business model involves taking waste carpet from a number of sources to be shredded and baled and then reused to surface equestrian arenas. It had a further plan, which never got anywhere, to make briquettes from a blend of carpet and wood bound with paraffin wax for biomass power stations.

On 21 June 2011, Blackwater was awarded a permit to operate as a

“Household, commercial and industrial waste transfer station with treatment”.

The first breaches of the permit were identified when the Environment Agency inspected the site in July 2011. It gave advice and guidance. There were subsequent breaches in September and December 2011 and March 2012. In fact, the first time there was an inspection that did not record any breaches was on 6 July 2012—but actually there was a breach. Material previously stored outside had been moved to storage bays, but those bays had been put up on part of the site that was outside the area covered by the permit—yet the agency accepted that.

From February 2013, the situation at the site deteriorated quickly, and the landlord became increasingly concerned about the breaches. In early February 2013, when he complained to the Environment Agency, it said that the site would be inspected in the next few weeks and that

“the landlord’s patience would be appreciated”.

At a site visit in March 2013, officials saw the waste being stored outside the shed in excess of the permitted tonnage by a large amount. On 20 March, they asked the operator for an action plan with a deadline of 3 April 2013 to deal with the issue. On 17 April, they agreed a new deadline. Blackwater then advised the Environment Agency that it would be relocating, but it did not. An action plan was received on 23 May, more than seven weeks after the original deadline. There is no approved management system in place for the site.

Too often it seems that the Environment Agency has accepted at face value information given to it by Blackwater. Deadlines passed and seem simply to have been revised. Storage bays were in place, but they were not within the area covered by the permit. The business was going to move, but it did not. Breaches of permit conditions were also identified at the business’s other site at Milfield, near Wooler in my constituency.

This company has been paid about £60 a tonne to take waste carpet, which has been stockpiled in amounts far greater than allowed and outside the areas for which the permit was given. There was only a very limited end-of-waste agreement. Complaints were made to the Environment Agency by Mr Blythe, his solicitors and neighbouring residents about Blackwater’s operations. The Environment Agency has now told me that it is pursuing enforcement action against Blackwater, but what was it doing before? Was it under any pressure to go easy on Blackwater?

It took a parliamentary question to establish that only one representation called on the Environment Agency not to take enforcement action, and it took a freedom of information request to get sight of the e-mail and careful study of the documents to establish who had sent it, because names are redacted. The e-mail reads:

“Hi Owen…See below from the excellent business which I sent you the EA papers for after your trip to Northumberland.

As you can see below the EA are trying to shut the business down even though its their non-processing of the licences which is the cause.

Time is of the essence now for financial reasons—please can you update me on any progress with EA? I am in London on tuesday and wednesday morning next week if we needed to meet.

Your urgent assistance in this is much appreciated.”

The Secretary of State did not reply until 5 August. His letter was headed by hand, “Dear Anne-Marie”, which somebody forgot to redact, which made it quite clear that the Conservative prospective candidate for the Berwick constituency had called on the Environment Agency to go easy on the company, which she thought was “excellent”, but was engaged in a serial failure to comply with environmental requirements. In fact, the Secretary of State detailed some of the failures in his letter, and urged that the company should work closely with the Environment Agency. It was an appalling failure of judgment for a political candidate to attempt to put pressure on the Environment Agency to go easy on a company flouting permit conditions, which are there to protect my constituents. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Department did nothing as a result of that representation to pressure the Environment Agency not to carry out its enforcement responsibilities.

The fact remains that the Environment Agency was, through its lack of enforcement, allowing the company to store combustible waste in ways which were bound to make a fire much more serious. I have asked the Environment Agency to clear the site and then claim against Blackwater’s public liability insurance, but it is not willing to attempt that course. Apparently, the Environment Agency would be happy to advise Mr Blythe on how best he could clear the site, but that would mean Mr Blythe having to find the funds to do so—up to £500,000—and then making a claim against Blackwater’s insurance, which might take years to settle.

If Blackwater fails to clear the site, its permit may well be revoked, but in that case, the problem would become one of contaminated land. The liability for restoring the land—in other words, for removing the burnt waste—might fall on Mr Blythe, as the landowner, and enforcement action could be taken against him for failing to deal with the contamination, despite all his work to try to deal with it. Is that fair? Of course it is not. I therefore ask the Minister to discuss that aspect of the problem with the Environment Agency.

Blackwater has apparently shown its bank statements to the Environment Agency, and has said that the business has no money to fund a clean-up operation. The company should have received well over £600,000 for taking carpet for recycling, yet no funds were set aside for dealing with the aftermath of potential disasters. Should there not be a bond system, such as existed until 2003, so that money is available for emergency clean-ups, given the increasing number of waste fires around the country? All the Environment Agency now does is to check the financial competence of the operator, a system which completely failed in this case. If something is not done, many more people will suffer as my constituents have done. I ask the Minister to see what he can do to get a happier outcome from this sorry story.

17:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

Following our Welsh colleagues’ deliberations to mark St David’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and the House gool Peran lowen—a happy St Piran’s day—for yesterday, on behalf of Cornish colleagues.

I was horrified to hear the story that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has shared with us. He has raised it several times in this place and elsewhere, and he is absolutely right to do so. The issues are very serious, and his points about the regulation of the Blackwater (North East) Ltd waste site are crucial ones for us to bear in mind as we consider the regulatory framework across the country.

I recognise how diligently my right hon. Friend has represented the interests of his constituents, many of whom have endured significant disruption to their lives and have had to contend with fears about the health effects of the fumes from the fire. I also recognise and commend the work of the site’s landowners, Mr and Mrs Blythe, in helping to extinguish the fire and to prevent pollution from the extinguished waste, as my right hon. Friend set out.

I welcome reports that the firefighting strategy and actions taken to control the run-off of firewater have so far proved effective and have prevented the contamination of both surface water and groundwater. I understand that Public Health England has advised that it does not expect there to be any long-term health effects from the fire.

My right hon. Friend rightly wants to know when his constituents will be rid of the waste operation, and when the stored waste will be removed. The site must now be returned to a condition that does not pose a continuing risk to the local community and the environment. The primary legal responsibility for that sits firmly with Blackwater, as the holder of the environmental permit. The site operator must meet his responsibility to clear the site and make it safe. As my right hon. Friend said, the landowners, Mr and Mrs Blythe, are calling for the Environment Agency to remove the residual waste from the site. The full cost of removing and disposing of the waste is estimated to be in the region of £635,000. Clearly, the removal of the stored waste must be a priority for all concerned.

I understand that there were early signs that the operator of the site was co-operating with the Environment Agency to address the breaches of his permit. However, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, the agency found it necessary to serve an enforcement notice on Blackwater on 10 January 2014. The notice required the company to comply with its environmental permit by removing all the extinguished waste by 24 February.

The site operator has utterly failed to comply with the notice. As a result, the Environment Agency is gathering evidence and has called the operator to a formal interview under caution to answer allegations of non-compliance, which could lead to prosecution or other enforcement action, including a court order to clear the site. If the operator is prosecuted, he should face the full consequences of his failings.

The seriousness of environmental offences and their environmental and economic impact has been recognised and embodied in the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline on environmental offences, which was published last week. In following the guideline, it is hoped that courts will reflect the true cost of breaches of environmental legislation when sentencing offenders and that that will act as a strong deterrent.

As my right hon. Friend has indicated, the Environment Agency has discretionary powers that enable it to take action and recover costs.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I took part in the framing of the sentencing guidelines and hope that they will provide strong guidance if the matter comes to court. The Minister has referred to the recent decision to take enforcement action. Will he deal later in his remarks with the extraordinarily long period of inaction between 2011 and 2013?

[Dan Rogerson]

I assure my right hon. Friend that I will talk about the discussions that I have had with the Environment Agency on earlier intervention in sites that may cause a problem or that are causing alarm.

In the first instance, the Environment Agency is encouraging the operator and the landowner to liaise with their respective insurers so that the cost of clearing and disposing of the waste does not add to the significant costs that have been incurred by the public purse in responding to the incident and in the subsequent pollution monitoring. Given the potential cost that I have set out, we must do everything that we can to avoid it being borne by the public purse. We face many challenges and the Environment Agency is doing a great deal of work across a range of issues, not least as a result of the recent extreme weather events. We must not leap up to incur these costs because they would have an impact on the budget of the Environment Agency or the local authority that intervened.

More generally, I hope that it will reassure my right hon. Friend to hear that I have been working with the Environment Agency and others to consider how we might prevent problems like those at Thrunton from arising, so that we do not have to take lengthy and costly remedial action. I met the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith of Finsbury, and its chief executive, Dr Paul Leinster, late last year to discuss these matters, following my appointment as Minister in October. I will do so again shortly.

The agency is under a duty to ensure that site operators are in a position to meet the obligations under their permits. I have challenged the agency to come to me with proposals on this issue. I am pleased to say that it is exploring, with representatives of the waste management industry, how operators can ensure that they are in a position to fund their obligations, including any potential clear-up and reducing the risk of the abandonment of waste and waste fires.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are working with the waste industry and the fire and rescue service to identify the root cause of fire incidents. We will assess the lessons that can be learned and the longer-term interventions that may be needed. The Environment Agency is reviewing what it can do to reduce the risk of fires, reduce the drivers of non-compliant behaviour and tackle the problem swiftly.

My right hon. Friend rightly focused on the agency’s approach to the enforcement of the permit conditions at the site. The Environment Agency has a statutory duty to carry out appropriate periodic inspections of regulated facilities to check their compliance with the terms and conditions of the environmental permits that it grants.

The agency has my full backing to take tough and timely enforcement action against those who repeatedly flout the law, undermine the legitimate waste management industry, and cause suffering to local communities. As part of the lessons to be learned from the handling of this case, I will ask the agency to consider whether its enforcement action could have been swifter.

I acknowledge that there have been several recent fires at regulated waste sites, with impacts on local communities that are similar to this case. Some 97% of waste management operators are good performers, so the emphasis must be on how best to intervene early to deal with the non-compliance of the poorest performers in a way that prevents harm to human health and damage to the environment.

The impact of poor performance and waste fires is one topic in the report, “Waste Crime: Tackling Britain’s Dirty Secret”, which was published on Tuesday this week by the Environmental Services Association Education Trust. I made it clear at the launch of that report that the Government want legitimate waste businesses to prosper and grow. Effective compliance and enforcement are needed to ensure that the market operates as we want, and that serious environmental damage is avoided. My right hon. Friend can be assured that I will continue to monitor the outcome of the incident, and work with the agency to ensure that lessons are learned. I will write to inform him of the actions to be taken as a result.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I would like to be sure of two things from the Minister. First, does he believe that an atmosphere was created in which the agency did not feel that it could or should use its powers, and that that was perhaps contributed to by inappropriate political pressures such as those I have described? Secondly, is he prepared to talk further with the Environment Agency about how we can avoid a situation in which a landowner who has done so much to deal with the problem is landed with the quite impossible total cost of the clear up?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to make such an undertaking on my right hon. Friend’s latter point, and in my discussions on the more general points I will look at the specifics of this case and at how Mr Blythe might be affected and what can be done, given the helpful attitude he has shown and the effort he has put into tackling the incident.

On the point about interference, I have made it clear that we expect the agency to intervene early. It is not my understanding that anything resulted from any contact there may have been with the Department on issues such as this, and in discussions with the agency I have made it clear that I expect it to tackle such problems early. I hope my right hon. Friend will feel that that is the correct way to deal with this and that that is the attitude we should be showing when tackling operators who are not managing resources effectively or moving towards the circular economy we want to see, but who are profiting at the expense of the local environment and local communities.

Question put and agreed to.

17:22

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 6th March 2014 Westminster Hall

Thursday 6 March 2014

[John Robertson in the Chair]

Backbench business

Thursday 6th March 2014 Westminster Hall

Women’s Contribution to the Economy

Thursday 6th March 2014 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Claire Perry.)

13:30

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I thank all hon. Members who have asked to speak in this debate. It is the tradition of our Parliament to have a debate as close as possible to the date of international women’s day, which is on Saturday, so Thursday afternoon is as close as we can get. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for acceding to the cross-party request to hold this debate today.

I will focus particularly on the global female economy. Women’s contribution to the economy is topical as the world digs its way out of the global financial crisis. It will be vital, if we are to consolidate economic recovery, for women around the world to participate in their economies. Research published by the Boston Consulting Group last September suggests that over the next five years, women will add $6 trillion to global earned income, which shows the size of the contribution that they already make and the scope for much more.

Both genders need to be active in the economy for GDP to grow to its full extent. An International Monetary Fund report also published last September noted the potential for macro-economic gains if women develop their full labour market potential. GDP per capita losses as a result of gender gaps in the labour market are estimated to be as high as 27% in some countries. The new Prime Minister of Japan took the World Economic Forum by storm this year when he said that if Japanese women were fully active in his economy, his country’s GDP would grow by 16%, that he sees that as absolutely key to the future of Japan, and that he intends to legislate for a target of 30% of leading positions in his country to be filled by women.

In developing countries, gender inequalities are often even greater than in developed countries. In 2013, the IMF cited studies estimating that of the 856 million women worldwide who have the potential to contribute more fully to their national economies, 812 million live in emerging and developing nations. India is one example. India has had, as role models, a famous female Prime Minister in Indira Gandhi and a female President, Pratibha Patil. However, the female participation rate in the labour force in India has stayed at around 32% since the turn of the century, and female wages in India have declined to an average of just 26% of men’s.

There are some important global initiatives to tackle such issues and realise the gains to be had from increasing female participation in labour markets. For example, Coca-Cola began its 5by20 initiative in 2010. Coca-Cola has pledged to empower 5 million female entrepreneurs around the globe by 2020 by increasing their access to business skills training courses, financial services and networks of mentors. The company employs 770,000 people directly and 10 million indirectly in its supply chain. Programmes are now running in more than 20 countries, including Haiti, Thailand, Liberia and Ethiopia, and will create a whole new generation of female entrepreneurs.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

We need not look only to developing countries: the number of female entrepreneurs in this country is about half the number in America. If we are talking about growing the economy, would we not solve our economic problems at a stroke if more women were encouraged to create companies, wealth and jobs?

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Lady and I share a great interest in the role of female entrepreneurs in our regional economy. If she waits a short while, I will come to exactly that point.

Charities are also running initiatives, such as Oxfam’s gendered enterprise and markets programme. Oxfam works with vulnerable farmers, especially women and mothers, helping them grow and sell more by supporting them to establish producer groups. In that way, female farmers can pool their resources and sell their produce in bulk to get a better price, enabling them to increase income and gain equal status in their homes and communities.

A couple of weeks ago, during the recess, I saw another example of an initiative to empower women when I visited Bangladesh in my capacity as vice-president of Tearfund. The charity is working in partnership with other non-governmental organisations to undertake capacity-building programmes in flood and drought-prone parts of the country, as well as empowering women in village communities to take over and improve their own situation, not necessarily by giving money directly but by building capacity. I saw women there being taught to use kitchen gardens to grow vegetable crops that they would otherwise pay a great deal to buy imported from India. It was a joy to behold the light that shone out of their eyes and their pride in improving their circumstances. They might be illiterate, but their daughters will be able to get a university education, and the resources that they had secured through better farming were ploughed into the needs of their local community.

I also discovered in Bangladesh the role played by the central bank there. Its governor, Atiur Rahman, has at heart a desire to make his country more sustainable and to help the women there become more sustainable. He has granted a mobile bank account to every female garment worker in the country for next to no charge, meaning that those women can return their income directly to mum and dad back home in the village without a middleman taking a cut. Those are examples of creative ways to ensure in developing countries that women play a much more active role in their economy.

As for the UK, Office for National Statistics figures published last month show that female employment in the UK is at its highest level since records began. It now stands at 62.7%, compared with 53% in 1971. Women now account for 46% of the UK work force. Figures from January 2014 also show that 20.4% of FTSE 100 directors are female, compared with 12.5% in February 2011. Progress is being made in those areas, but there is definitely still further to go.

Turning to my regional interest, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), I am disturbed to read that there are serious geographic imbalances in female participation in this country. The lowest employment rates for women are in Birmingham, where the rate is 50%; Nottingham, where it is 54%; Coventry, where it is 55%; and Leicester, where it is 55%. That means that they have a higher than average proportion of women not actively employed in the economy. I fully understand that that might be linked to the ethnic make-up of those cities, but none the less, it is disappointing to find that the midlands cities, which are at the heart of the manufacturing renaissance that we are enjoying, have such low levels of female participation compared with other cities.

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

I know all too well the importance of women in the economy, having worked in my family business for the last 25 years with my wife, my sister, and the founder of the company—my mother, who built up the business. It strikes me from what my right hon. Friend says that not enough young women are going into the workplace and aspiring to do well. Does she think that it should be incumbent on successful women to act as role models by going into schools, inspiring people and telling them that there is no limit to their aspiration and should be no barriers to it?

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I agree that the role modelling to women needs to start really young—as early as primary school—before girls are put off entering certain professions that they somehow do not see as being open to them. I will warm to that theme.

In September 2013, the ONS published a report on women in the labour market that established that there were important gender differences between different occupations. For example, 82% of those employed in caring or leisure occupations are women; by contrast, just 10% of those in skilled trade occupations are women. Some industries have a good gender split. For example, in February figures from the General Medical Council showed that 48.8% of registered general practitioners are female. A report published by the Law Society in May 2013 showed that approximately 47% of solicitors with practising certificates are women, compared with a figure of 39% in 2002. That report stated that for the past 20 years women have accounted for more than half of new entrants to the legal profession, so the proportion of women in the profession is set to increase in the foreseeable future. According to the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, women account for 49% of the work force in the creative advertising sector, and according to the Performing Rights Society for Music, the music licensing organisation, nearly a third of last year’s top 100 albums were by women artists or groups fronted by women.

However, one sector that has traditionally been heavily male-dominated is manufacturing and engineering. It is a sector that is very dear to my heart, as Jaguar Land Rover’s two factories are very important to constituents in both Solihull and Meriden. There is no doubt that the current manufacturing renaissance is a fantastic opportunity for more women to enter the manufacturing sector. However, the growth in manufacturing has provoked a skills shortage, which could be addressed—at least in part—by encouraging more women into manufacturing and engineering jobs.

Jaguar Land Rover, our local employer, is certainly seizing the opportunity by running a programme called “Young Women in the Know” for year 10 and 11 students, to encourage more women to consider careers in manufacturing and engineering. It is a week-long programme that enables young women to find out more about the sector. Students visit JLR’s manufacturing, design and engineering sites; they meet female apprentices, graduates and managers; and they participate in work placements. Information is also provided in all our local schools about the apprentice and graduate schemes run by JLR, and there are also workshops for job applicants and work on interview techniques, to help female applicants to understand what is required in an interview situation and to give them the confidence to go for it. By the end of 2013, 200 young women had participated in the courses, which had increased interest in engineering and design careers at JLR by 35%.

There is a parallel “Girls in the Know” programme for girls in years 5 and 6—the top of primary school. That is very important. When we had a cross-party round table of all the MPs in this House whose constituencies are affected in some way by the JLR supply chain, one of the important points that emerged is that girls are put off at an early age from thinking of going to work in the automotive industry, in manufacturing generally and in engineering specifically, despite the fact that the key qualifying subject for engineering is maths. These days, engineering is not all about heft; it is actually about being a really good mathematician.

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

On that point, my partner is a maths teacher and one of the things that he struggles with is getting girls to study A-level maths, because they do not see the roles in maths as being particularly relevant to them. One thing that he has been doing is taking A-level girls to see, for example, British Airways engineering, so that they can see some of the more practical applications of maths, to make maths A-levels—and the jobs—attractive to them. Should not the Department for Education be doing more to encourage that type of activity?

[Mrs Spelman]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that maths is an A-level that is prized by all employers, and both men and women who are good at maths have good career prospects; there is no difference between men and women in that respect.

There was a lively event on Monday in the House of Commons, where MPs were invited to come and mentor, for 15 minutes at a time, groups of secondary school students who had come in from different London boroughs. It was interesting that, even then, I picked up among these school students that the girls did not fully appreciate the passport that is a maths A-level. I would say to them, “If you’re good at it, go for it!”

Alongside these gender disparities across economic sectors, there are, of course, income differences, which are a consequence of occupational differences in income. Men are far more likely to be in professional occupations associated with higher pay, for example software development, while more women are found in lower- paid professional occupations, including those in the caring professions. According to the 2012 annual survey of hours and earnings, programmers and software development professionals earned on average more than £20 per hour—£20.02, to be precise—excluding overtime. By comparison, nurses earned on average £16.61 per hour, according to the survey. We might reflect on that kind of disparity. The ONS report from September 2013 showed that men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners among all employees.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she share my concern about industries such as banking? Big high street banks are making great claims that they are introducing a tremendous amount of gender equality, yet below the figures there is a tremendous amount of gender imbalance; it tends to be women who have the lower-paid jobs in the banks and men who have the more senior and higher-paid jobs. That is despite the fact that there is an advantage in having women in certain areas, such as dealing rooms, where they can “de-testosterone” and therefore de-risk some of these organisations.

[Mrs Spelman]

Testosterone is far too racy a subject to start talking about mid-afternoon on a Thursday. Actually, my hon. Friend makes a good point. I applaud moves such as the one by the chief executive of Barclays, who is introducing quotas for women within his company, so that women get a really good opportunity to be represented in the higher-paid echelons of the banking business. I wish that we saw more of that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I apologise in advance for having to depart; I hope to come back later, but I am on a Public Bill Committee and I think that my turn to speak will come quite shortly. One thing that various investigations of professional groups—even, for example, people teaching in universities—show is that at younger ages men and women are often quite equally paid; they seem to be on the same sort of earnings levels. However, there is a disparity later, which is closely related to family responsibilities.

[Mrs Spelman]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a good point and she shows perfect timing. I have a lot of material for today’s debate, and I may not use it all, but I want to come on to the issue of the costs of child care, because it is a significant factor and it affects women’s earning potential. If they have to take a career break, it eventually has a negative impact on their earnings during their career.

The ONS report from last year showed that the age of children and the relationship status of the mother are important factors in determining the likelihood of mothers being able to go to work. Only 39% of single mothers whose youngest child is aged three or below are in work, compared with a figure of 65% for those mothers who are in a couple. That situation changes later on, with 61% of single mothers who have a youngest child of primary school age in work, because it becomes possible for the lone parent to get back into the workplace.

The cost of child care is a real challenge. There was a report only this week that showed that child care costs more than the average mortgage, which should concern us all. However, the Government have taken significant steps to try to help women with the cost of child care: introducing shared parental leave from April 2015; funding 15 hours a week of free child care for all three and four-year-olds, which will save families approximately £380 a year per child; funding 15 hours a week of free child care for disadvantaged two-year-olds, which will save the most disadvantaged families more than £2,400 a year per child; introducing tax-free child care for lone parents in work, and for families with two working parents who each earn less than £150,000; and increasing child tax credit to £3,625 a year. These are all steps in the right direction, but for a lot of women, the cost of child care remains a significant deterrent to being active in the economy.

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

I am being pre-emptive in thanking my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. I should like to mention something that is not often highlighted in political circles, or generally in business circles. I used to work from home and was a stay-at-home dad, raising my two teenage children. There has been a slight role reversal. My wife is a lawyer, as my right hon. Friend is aware. We are now bringing up our third child. The role of men, and being a proper father, is crucial. Sometimes, not just politicians, but men in business and of all backgrounds need to talk about their contribution to the family.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has been a role model to his children, who will remember the time that he spent at home with them.

[Paul Uppal]

I am not sure about that!

[Mrs Spelman]

I am optimistic that that will be so. It may take a long time before the kids say, “Thank you very much, dad,” but when they are raising their own children, it might just occur to them.

Capitalising on the contribution that women can make to the economy is vital for our economic recovery. Women’s contributions are already significant, but there is potential for much more. We need to take steps actively to encourage this, taking the global picture into account, and learning from the example of both international and domestic companies and charities that are leading the way, such as Coca-Cola, JLR, Tearfund, Oxfam and others. We need women to be actively involved in the economy for this country to achieve its full potential. The female economy is the key to a sustainable future.

13:51

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) on leading the call for this debate. When I spoke to the Leader of the House on 9 January, I pointed out that it was traditional to have an international women’s day debate and that, at a time when women of the world do two thirds of the world’s work, but only get 10% of the world’s earnings, there was a big challenge that we had to address. I am sad, as I am sure other Members in this Chamber are, that the debate about women’s issues is half in the main Chamber—about women in Afghanistan —and half in this Chamber. I should like to contribute to both debates. I hope that all of us can unite to make sure that next year we do not get a repeat of this mess.

I think that all hon. Members can unite in celebrating the way in which women’s contribution to the economy has grown. When I joined the work force in the 70s, only half of women were in employment and now it is two thirds, although we have not yet achieved equality with men. The Women’s Business Council recently calculated that if we were to equalise the participation of men and women in the economy, we would increase GDP by 0.5% per annum and by 10% by 2030. I think that we could all unite in wanting that.

I am concerned that we continue chronically to undervalue the role that women continue to play, because so much of the work that women do is not paid; and that is because we do not put an economic value on the things that women do that make the world work and make the economy and society operate effectively. Caring for family is critical to economic success. Without family care, children will not succeed in learning and the costs of caring for older and ill people will be a public burden. My thesis is that if we recognised the value of women’s work more effectively, we would have a stronger economy, there would be less under-employment of women and we would all thrive better.

I want to mention specifically a group of women that we have not noticed. We have noticed that there is a child care penalty, which the right hon. Lady described well, but I want to talk about the contribution of older women. In that context, I commend to right hon. and hon. Members a report produced by the TUC this week, called “Age immaterial: women over 50 in the workplace”. It is striking that older women face additional penalties. I am really sad that, in an era when we have traditionally equalised the pay gap and it has been pulling together—under the previous Government it reduced by 7.5% or 8%—for the first time in five years it has widened a bit again. It is worth looking at for whom it has widened most and where the pay gap is biggest.

We tend to think that the pay gap is biggest for a woman caring for her children. Actually, that is not so. The pay gap for women under 40 is less than 1% and the biggest pay gap between women and men—18%—is for women between 50 and 59. We need to address this issue of women in precarious employment who are underemployed and underpaid.

Older women share one kind of vulnerability with younger women: they are much more likely to be on zero hours contracts than other groups in the economy. This is a phenomenon at the beginning and the end of employment. They are more likely to be low paid. They will not benefit from the Budget that we are all looking forward to next week—well, we may not be looking forward to it, but we will have it shortly—because more than half of women over 50 are in part-time employment and more than half of them earn less than the tax-free allowance threshold. If that threshold is increased again, it will not address this low-paid group in the economy.

We need to deal with the concern about the most precarious women workers. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that I have been banging on somewhat—and I want to bang on briefly once more—about the fact that we do not protect young women from employment in roles ancillary to sex jobs, in pole-dancing clubs, saunas, massage parlours, and so on. Those roles are still advertised through jobcentres. It is shocking that people who do these ancillary jobs as hat-check girls, receptionists, spa workers, and so on, can still get the employment subsidy that is available to workers between 18 and 24. It is shocking that my taxes might be used to subsidise a young woman in such a role. I should welcome the Minister’s saying that she will discuss in her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, whether that is happening at the moment and what the future jobs are of the girls in these ancillary roles. I fear that those jobs are a stepping stone to employment in the sex industry. If that is so, the least we should do is prohibit their being subsidised. But I divert into younger workers from my main issue, which is older workers.

If we were to tackle the issue of the quality of work available to older women, we would stop wasting a huge resource that is potentially available to our economy. It is striking that two thirds of people who work after retirement age are women, but two thirds of those women are still on the lowest pay levels. Of the men who comprise the one third of people who work after retirement age, two thirds of them are—guess what?—on the top rates of pay for their role. That is a reflection of the fact that women have to keep working because they have lower savings and poorer pensions and still have family responsibilities and costs. As I am sure other Members do, I speak to many women in my constituency who are desperately trying to get together resources to help their children and grandchildren get on to the housing ladder, and so on. We are wasting the potential of a large group of women, which we need to address.

[Lorely Burt]

I am listening closely to the hon. Lady. It is regrettable that older women are paid less—I declare my interest—but perhaps that is partly because they take time out for child care, whereas the boys, as ever, run ahead and develop their career. Also, as women get older, many of us have to care for our parents and the older generation. Does she think that the increase in flexible working rules will help this generation of women? What else does she suggest that we, as a Government, can do to facilitate the narrowing of the pay gap between men and women?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Lady is right that the motherhood penalty goes through a woman’s career, which is one of the reasons why, although women outnumber men in the earlier levels of management, they fall off the career ladder as they go up. She is also right to highlight that, if we were to make work more flexible—I will make some specific proposals on ways to do that—it would be easier for women to thrive in the workplace. As is traditional in all sorts of areas of life, a male model is the standard model and women, of course, are a diversion from that standard model. I remember that when I was first elected in 1997—I was one of the 101 women we flapped on about in the Labour party—one of the difficulties that women such as me faced was that every single thing we did, and every single step we took, represented women in politics. Every time a woman did something that was perhaps unreliable or unusual, it was because that is what women do. We were strange and unusual, and we were a diversion from the norm. Interestingly, I no longer carry on my back that requirement to represent women in politics. Although we are still a small minority of Parliament, we have become more normal.

That is good, but we still have a workplace environment in which the norm is nine-to-five. The norm is a man with a wife at home who looks after the children, ensures that they get to school and deals with their doctor’s appointments, and so on. The recent figures from the Office for National Statistics are interesting because they suggest that women take more sick days than men. There were arguments that women know how to use doctors better, but everyone who has really been there knows that it is not because women are sicker than men or are better at using doctors; it is because women take time off pretending to be sick when their children are sick. When I was a teacher, no teacher ever took time off because they were sick, but they did take time off when their kids were sick. We have failed to recognise the different experiences of women and men in how work is structured, so we think it is very modern to make work more flexible by moving from a very male model to something that is more normal for all men and women, but we need to go further.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

The hon. Lady is making some powerful and important points. Does she accept that, although there is plenty that both sides of the House can do to make work more flexible and to make it easier to achieve balance, we also have to address the deep-seated cultural differences between men and women that still seem to be perpetuated? How do we break some of those down across the economic spectrum, not just across those parts of the economy that have seen the light and are working towards equality?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I heard the hon. Gentleman’s earlier intervention on women having to be role models for other women, and I do not see why men should not be role models, too. Men should take some responsibility.

On the deep-seated cultural messages, embedded in our culture is a belief that we can pay much less for work that people are willing to do unpaid than we pay for work that people would never do unpaid. I do not think anyone would be a banker unpaid, so bankers are paid squillions of times more than care workers—I really do mean squillions. The big cultural shift that we need to make is to think about value. We severely undervalue the skills involved in caring for and looking after people. If we made that shift, perhaps organisational shifts in the workplace would follow. That is an enormous cultural leap, and we will not achieve it in five minutes, but it should be our aim. If we do not aim at it, we will continue with the situation in which, as I said, women across the world do two thirds of the world’s work—they do the child care, other caring for the family, subsistence farming and so on—and the men, who do less work, get 90% of the pay. That is not a sensible way to run a world, let alone a country.

Older women have faced the biggest jump in unemployment since 2010. Although women’s employment, generally, has increased because there has been a trend towards women entering the paid work force, there has been a huge leap in unemployment among older women. Unemployment in that group has gone up by 45% since the general election, although it has eased off slightly in the last quarter, but that compares with a 1% increase in unemployment for the rest of the population. There is a serious problem in how we deal with older women. That is partly because older women tend to be concentrated in the public sector, where there have been huge job losses, but it is also because older women are easier to squeeze out of the work force. We need to address the way in which older women are pushed out of work. When I held a discussion group for older women in my constituency, one woman said, “We are always first in line for redundancy and last in line for interviews.”

I have talked to various professional groups about what is happening in different professions. The National Union of Teachers, for example, recently conducted a survey on the misuse of capability among teachers. The survey found that more than three quarters of the union’s representatives report that women teachers over the age of 50 are disproportionately represented in their casework. Older women doctors and those in professions allied to medicine, such as physiotherapy, have reported pressure to exit their careers as hospital doctors and specialists. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales reports that, of the women members who have declared themselves to be unemployed, 60% are over 45 and 43% are aged between 45 and 54.

The Commission on Older Women, which I helped to set up, has received extensive evidence that older women are leaving work because they cannot balance work and care responsibilities. We have a perfect storm of women being squeezed out while they are trying to juggle their responsibilities. Members will have seen the commission’s work with broadcasters following evidence that older women no longer appear on our television screens. The figures on broadcasting that we received on the commission showed that 82% of TV presenters over 50 were men. While TV presenters in general are broadly reflective of the age of the general population, that is not the case with older TV presenters. Some 48% of TV presenters under the age of 50 are women—compared with 49.7% of the general population under 50—yet that percentage falls like a stone with older presenters.

There is a problem with women being squeezed out and women moving out because of their caring responsibilities. As a Parliament and a Government, we first have to do what we are doing today, which is to celebrate the contribution that women can make. We have to ensure that women are more resistant to the squeezing out efforts and more confident in their role in employment. We also need to do much more to help women to balance work and their family responsibilities.

The problem is not just about child care. We have made some progress on child care, and we need to make more, but we also need to recognise that women care at all points of their life. For example, older women might find that their spouse or a parent has a sudden crisis illness. They would not know, at that point, whether to leave work, because they would not know whether the illness was serious and long term. They would not know whether they would have to become a full-time carer, and they would not know what the caring would be like. They would not know whether they needed to get some flexibility or whatever. The least we should do is back the request made in the TUC’s “Age Immaterial” campaign to allow what it calls “adjustment leave”, which is a period of leave at a moment of crisis that people can have to adjust their lives. Some of us will have read Jackie Ashley’s account of having to care for Andrew Marr when he had his stroke. She had a tolerant employer, but she did not know how disabled he would be. It is great to see him back on our screens, but she needed to take time off to look after him and enable him to get back to work. She did not know what the future would be. We should legislate for the right to adjustment leave, which would give someone in those circumstances a short-term period of leave to find out the right thing to do, such as whether to apply for more flexible hours.

We need to ensure that there are more well-paid part-time jobs. One of the problems about part-time employment is that it tends to be at the bottom of the pay scale. As parliamentarians, we could lead a campaign to get well-paid part-time jobs. Unfortunately, too many women in part-time work at present are not paid anything like the living wage; they are on the minimum wage. As I have said, older women are often well represented in public sector jobs. They have been affected by the public sector pay freeze for a long time, and their incomes are therefore being seriously hit. We need a better system of carer’s leave. If we had that, we could keep the talent of older women workers. We are missing out on their experience, talent and capacity to lead in the work force.

One multinational company reports that it has bigger profits in its outlets where an older woman is on the serving counter. The company does not employ many older workers. We have to make much more progress on tackling the needs of older women. The consequence of older women being squeezed out of work is that too often they try and do not succeed in becoming entrepreneurs and making little bits of work here and there. We do not give enough support to women trying to become entrepreneurs, although it would be better that someone who wants to be an entrepreneur starts that at the beginning of their career, rather than seeing it as a consolation prize when they have been stuffed in a longer term career.

I make a particular plea that we get it right for older women. If we do that, and stop wasting their talent, stop excluding them from training opportunities and stop squeezing them out of jobs, and use their experience more intelligently, I have no doubt that they would contribute massively to the success of our economy and to the happiness of our families. If we do that, we will have a better society that all of us can celebrate.

14:16

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I am delighted, Mr Robertson, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this important debate to celebrate international women’s day. I hope to be rather more upbeat than the hon. Lady has been over the past 25 minutes.

In 2011, just 12.5% of FTSE 100 companies had directors who were women. It has been predicted that in 2015, that figure will rise to 25%, and that is undoubtedly partly a consequence of the hard work of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to get more women into senior positions. It is no mean feat to run a high-profile business, and it is clear that women are just as capable of doing that as men. The Derby-based firm DeltaRail, run by Anna Matthews, is an excellent example of a thriving business headed up by a woman, and that is particularly impressive given the male-dominated field in which she operates.

While the number of female company directors is a good indicator of women’s enhanced role in business, more should be done to emphasise the role of women in small and medium-sized enterprises, and the contribution that they make to the economy. There are far more SMEs than there are big businesses, and they employ more people. In my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, a number of enterprising women have struck out on their own and started their own businesses. Three years ago, my constituent Wendy bought a local business called Fresh Basil. She came from a farming background and had worked as a tax fraud inspector for some years before buying the shop. She wanted more freedom to do what she wanted to do.

Just three years on, Wendy is running a thriving café and delicatessen employing 20 people. Aside from providing employment for local people, she is also diligent in promoting local suppliers, using 90 of them to stock her shop and so reducing the number of food miles. The business also supports the aims of Transition Belper, which are to support local business and for people to spend £5 a week more in their area on local products, rather than going to supermarkets and big businesses. That brings far more money and disposable income into the local economy. Wendy helps budding producers to find buyers for their products. In the context of the wider local economy, she ensures that all her staff are trained ambassadors for the town of Belper, which is within the world heritage site of the Arkwright mills, where the industrial revolution began. They all can recommend local businesses to those who visit the town.

Another business headed up by one of my dynamic female constituents is Jack Rabbits. Amelia Horne started the business as a result of her passion for good, locally sourced food, and she now runs an incredibly successful grocery and café business. All the dairy products, meat and fish that the business sells are sourced from local suppliers, including from my local butcher, Barry Fitch, in my village of Little Easton. Even the wooden boards that they serve their food on come from a carpenter in Derbyshire.

Like Wendy, Amelia is keen to help the local community, and she supplies all the business leftovers to local homeless shelters. It is with reference to these two cases that I would say that increasing the number of women SME owners not only makes economic sense, in terms of the jobs created by businesses, but helps communities, and it is important that the Government support that. This, coupled with the fact that only 18% of SME owners in this country are women, makes it clear that more needs to be done to promote women in business. Sally Montague, who runs a local hairdressing organisation, opened her first salon in 1983. She now has six salons, ranging from one for students in the university of Derby, one in the city of Derby, one in Belper, one in Duffield in my constituency, and one in Ashbourne. She employs many young people—men and women—who are all local.

Of course, successful small businesses do not stay small for long, and Pennine Healthcare in Derby is a prime example. Liz Fothergill, the company’s CEO, started working at that family-run firm during her holidays when she was at university. She was the person responsible for establishing the company’s export links with Europe and the rest of the world, and now Pennine exports to 50 countries across the globe. Liz’s achievements have been widely acknowledged, and in June 2012, she was appointed His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales’s ambassador for the east midlands through his patronage of Business in the Community.

Such local examples show that women play a vital role in local economies and communities, and that should be reflected in international aid policy. Last year, there was an article in The Guardian about women’s savings and credit co-operatives, which help women in Ethiopia to set up shops that trade in local goods. In fact, the Department for International Development also helped with microfinance for women in many countries. The businesses are not always successful, but the profits earned by the women running them mean that they no longer financially depend on their husbands, and they serve to empower the whole community.

Community development projects also play an important part in getting women to engage with the local economy. I should declare an interest in a charity I work with; it is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Free the Children creates infrastructure in communities in less developed countries through its “adopt a village” programme. The scheme consists of five pillars, one of which creates streams of income for previously impoverished areas, which means that local parents can afford to send their daughters to school. This has been particularly successful in Kenya, but it operates in India, South America, China and other countries, and it has encouraged female entrepreneurship.

Kenyan women are shown how to grow crops to give their children a much more balanced diet, and their children are taught at school about the benefits of drip irrigation and fertilisers on their crops. The women then buy goats, chickens and cows. They feel empowered and are challenging the men as the earners in their family. They feel so empowered that the men who were sitting about not wanting to take part are now saying, “Can we do some of this as well, please?” because they recognise that the money brought in benefits their children.

Free the Children is having its first “we” day in Wembley arena tomorrow, with 11,000 students from 700 schools nationwide. Most of the students will be girls, and they will hear from inspirational speakers such as Al Gore, Malala, Prince Harry and many others to encourage them to continue volunteering to help poorer people, and to help them themselves when they get to doing their GCSEs and A-levels. It has been shown that people who work with this organisation get better exam results, and many of them want to go into international development in the future.

On the number of women in Parliament, we have not set as good an example as we should. We are much better than we were. Many more women came in at the last election from the Conservative party than have ever been here before, but one or two of them are leaving. Perhaps it is time for the Conservative party to consider all-women shortlists. I have been completely against them before, but the Labour party had them, and they have cracked the system. If we do not get enough women at the next election, we may have to consider an all-women shortlist. I say that as someone who has always been against that, but we are not representative of the whole country as we should be. We would set a better example for girls coming into the world of work, and for women already there, so that they see that they can get to the top. We have had the first and only female Prime Minister in this country, and we should be proud of that, but this Parliament is not good enough yet.

I am delighted at the results of the Government’s hard work with regard to women board members. Again, there is still a good way to go to get more women involved in small business.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I welcome what the hon. Lady says about having an all-women shortlist, but on women board members, one of the problems is that too many of the additional women board members are in non-executive roles. Does she have any proposals to make more women executive board members?

[Pauline Latham]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is sitting behind me, will address that in her speech, and I do not want to steal her thunder.

If more women were involved in small business, and if that was encouraged and supported by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and by the Department for International Development, which does a huge amount to help women and girls into employment and out of extreme poverty, we would see enriched communities not only nationally, but internationally. Everybody could unite around the fact that that is what we want for this world.

14:26

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

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Slough about the unfortunate timetabling error, which I hope we will not see again next year. I hope we will be celebrating the achievement of women in our society—in the economy or elsewhere—in the Chamber in 2015.

Mr Robertson, may I draw to your attention, and perhaps to the Clerk’s, my disappointment at the fact that the Library chose not to produce a full debate briefing pack for this debate? There was a small contribution, but I was informed this morning that, in contrast to other Adjournment debates that have taken place here—for example, the future of the A303, which had the full works—a full debate pack was not available. Although the information that we have is relevant, we should have had a better briefing from the Library. I hope you will use your offices to communicate that, Mr Robertson.

I welcome the positivity of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and her insight into international development issues. She will be aware that 22 March is world water day. I have in the past supported charities such as WaterAid. We must recognise the international development work—through charities, direct aid and the initiatives of former Prime Ministers—to get children, particularly girls, into school. That is something of which we should be proud as British Members of Parliament.

I want to talk more about the contribution to the economy. As my hon. Friend suggested, I intend to talk about the executive pipeline of talent. I will start with my own inspiration and why I decided to go into business. Both my parents are teachers, and I did not have much experience of the private sector worlds as a child growing up. My granny had worked in the private sector, which was kind of news to me. She started her career with matchboxes at Bryant & May, but ended up working for a company called Dista, which is part of the Eli Lilly group; I was showing an interest in chemistry. She was involved in packing, so I will not pretend she was on the executive board or anything like that, but she started to show me some of the information that used to be sent to all the pensioners by Eli Lilly. That got me more and more interested in the business side of life.

While I was doing my PhD, I was lucky enough to host Helen Sharman, the first British astronaut, when she spoke at University college London. She was a chemistry graduate—that was why she came to UCL to speak to us—and she worked as a chemist for a company called Mars, which the hon. Member for Slough knows well. She also does a lot of work highlighting the importance of science and engineering. I found that woman, working in an international business, inspiring. She was one of the reasons why I applied to join Mars.

Also during my PhD, I went off on a business school. At the time, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council used to run business weeks and everyone on a Government-funded PhD could go to different parts of the country to meet new people and, more importantly, to do things such as business games with all sorts of companies. As I was doing that, I found another lady who worked for Mars, Ingrid Uden, inspirational. I had met two ladies from Mars, so that was the only company that I wanted to work for. I was successful there and, through various bits of careers—admittedly some up, some down—my last role working for Mars was as a finance director of one of its UK subsidiaries.

Mars is an unusual company, but what struck me when I was there, which might not have been particularly well known among most employees—associates, as they are known—was that the Mars board had, as one of its key measures, the number of women in certain roles, in a certain zone, and above. Measuring that recognised the board’s desire to ensure that women were well represented in the pipeline of talent at management level—those with the potential to become future board directors at Mars.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The present chief executive of Mars in Slough is a woman, which is rare in a manufacturing company of that size.

[Dr Coffey]

It is. I know Fiona Dawson well, and she is an inspirational lady. She is a busy lady as well, but she is an inspiration to many who are interested in getting involved in business, because she shows that running a leading manufacturing and retail business is an exciting career. It has taken her to different parts of the world, but she is particularly good at leading in the UK.

That takes me to the pipeline of talent report, which I was pleased to co-author with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), who cannot contribute to the debate because of her Parliamentary Private Secretary position in support of the Government today. I want to place on the record my thanks to her, to everyone who participated in the evidence-gathering sessions, to the witnesses and to my researcher, Edward Winfield, who is leaving next week to get a job in industry. He certainly pulled together a good report.

Rather than going through all the inputs to the report, I will focus on the executive summary—if any hon. Members do not have a copy of the report, I am happy to circulate it to them. Our starting point was a quotation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Little more than two years ago, he said:

“If we fail to unlock the potential of women in the labour market, we’re not only failing those individuals, we’re failing our whole economy.”

It is right to get that kind of emphasis. Women can and should be playing a more important role, if they wish, in contributing towards the economy of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has already referred to the increase in the number of women going on boards and the hon. Member for Slough said, accurately, that we should not focus only on non-executive directors. To get more executive directors, we need to focus on the executive pipeline of talent.

In our report, we came up with a series of recommendations, because, as anyone who works in business knows, if we do not measure something, it will not get done. Our concrete recommendations are not meant only for companies and head-hunters or to inform the views of investors; they are also aimed at women and the Government.

Women should actively seek out mentors and sponsors—they are different roles—and everyone needs a champion on the top board for that to happen. We should not be too shy about asking for help. Interestingly, when some women are offered coaching, they see that as a bit of an insult, reflecting on their performance, as opposed to regarding it as an important tool to improve their performance and attainment. One of the things I have not been investing in as a Member of Parliament, but should have been, is the element of coaching. I can honestly say that it is one of the best tools for any successful person.

Women who have risen to the top of business often focus on one particular discipline—whether human resources, marketing or finance. Certainly some of our expert witnesses recommended taking on responsibility for profit and loss, managing budgets and programmes and being prepared to take on an international role early in a career as important parts of the toolkit. Such things give the wider business experience that can lead to someone who wants to be considered for promotion, or to be poached to go elsewhere, eventually making it to the board. Seeking out stretching assignments is also important; I do not know of any successful woman who stays in her comfort zone. I could use exactly the same words of any successful man. The issue is always about seeking to be extraordinary, to go up the pipeline of talent and up the ladder of promotion.

In our report, we also recognise that people should establish and use networks to increase their spheres of influence. I remember a discussion I had at a Conservative party conference with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), as she is now. I was moving within the company, but I was concerned that my salary would go up only slightly, because of traditional rules, so I was on a considerably lower salary than fellow directors. We chatted about it, and she said bluntly, “You’ve got to ask for it and be prepared to negotiate.” She was absolutely right. I did, and my boss was probably surprised, but he recognised the fairness of the challenge and I got a reasonable pay rise and was level with other directors of similar standing in the company. We should not expect life to be handed to us on a plate; it never is. We need to ensure that we grab the opportunities.

As for the Government’s role, I want to see gender diversity reporting extended to senior management under the corporate governance code for financial reporting. The “Think, Act, Report” initiative is about capturing the data at almost every level to assess what is going on. Personally, I think that it is a bold initiative. Some of the larger companies probably already have the IT systems to add that information to the reported indicators, but even for relatively small companies, going three levels down from the board is probably not a difficult task. Any good company regularly does promotion and talent reviews, so such information should be readily available, if it is not already. The reason for putting it in the corporate reporting is to provide a spotlight on the issue and to ensure that companies are thinking about it. I hope that the Government will take that recommendation up, although I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to make any such commitment today.

Another thing we want businesses to do is to be more formal about establishing mentoring and sponsorship programmes. They happen in many companies, but often tend to be more informal. We also want to see more formalising of career breaks and return-to-work schemes. It was interesting to hear from a head-hunter that although some women who go on maternity leave come back more quickly—we now have flexible shared parenting leave, which is welcome—for most the issue is about keeping current.

“Keeping current” does not mean simply receiving a newsletter; it might mean having back-to-work days or making sure that people on maternity leave are still invited to go on team building exercises. The key is to put more choice into the hands of the women themselves. We also learned that women in the professional services might want to do courses to keep up to speed.

Just today, over lunch, I was discussing this debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). She told me that she had been an accountant, but through her professional network she learned that the Law Society had a successful method for getting and keeping people in touch. I would recommend that other professional bodies learn from the Law Society. What it does in that regard was news to me and I shall be following the information up.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I have been consulting with women in my constituency about child care. One thing a number of them have said is that while on maternity leave they would like to be able to participate in training at the workplace that they want to go back to, and have the associated child care costs met—some have the right to access training, but the child care costs are not met. That seems a simple thing to bring into workplaces or even put in legislation. What does the hon. Lady think of that?

[Dr Coffey]

It is an interesting idea. The hon. Lady will probably realise that I am not into legislating for every outcome, although I recognise that that might be her approach. However, the idea could be established as good practice. As we know, companies recognise that they miss out on talent when they do not provide those kinds of initiatives. If the businesses that are, dare I say it, more forward-thinking have not heard that idea before, I am sure it will ring out from the Chamber today. I am also sure that it will be mentioned to Mars when she next visits that company. It is a good idea.

In compiling our report, we looked at child care policy. I do not have children, so I do not pretend to have the same experience as others, but when I was working in the private sector I managed a team of 24 people at one stage. I think I am right in saying that 16 of those were women working part time and balancing other responsibilities. I often found that people who worked part time were the most diligent employees, partly because they valued the fact that they had a reasonably well-paid job that was part time and partly because they were very organised. I will not pretend that we came to a unanimous view on child care, but we encouraged the Government to bring forward the tax-free child care policy. The Budget is on 19 March. I will be astonished if the policy makes an early entry, but nevertheless we can say with confidence that next year we will have a new policy that will be very welcome indeed.

As for other aspects of our report, we wanted to extend the work of Lord Davies to include public sector and professional services. I thank my noble friend Viscount Younger—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and I were fortunate to go to present some recommendations from our report to the Professional Business Services Council, and I am conscious that Viscount Younger is keen to do something about this issue with the professional services.

More young women than young men are currently entering the legal profession—I think that these data are widely known publicly—but at the moment a man is nine times more likely to become a partner than a woman. I am sure that that will change naturally anyway—I would not expect people who have joined a law firm in the past few years to be partners by now, as that takes time—but I would like to raise the consciousness of the professional services on that, as something needs to be done. In accountancy firms it is about three times more likely at the moment that a man will become a partner than a woman. There is work to be done there.

Lord Davies has also focused significantly on non-executive directors. I know that the Government are looking at what more they can do on that issue. Although I am confident that we will reach the 25% target for board directors by next year, we need to continue working on the percentage of executives.

Another key aspect that we asked the Government to focus on was improving careers advice for girls, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM. I was pleased to see that 40% of STEM ambassadors are women. I note the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden about maths being a key enabling subject for engineering. Interestingly, I have had quite a debate with the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), on that matter. I am astonished that people can get on to engineering degrees without A-level physics. But my discussion with him on the issue was enlightening, and I recognise that quite a lot of young women who do triple science A-level tend to take biology, chemistry and maths, and do not focus on physics.

Last week we saw the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, during her visit here. She has a PhD in physics. She is an experienced politician and a clever lady, who did the hard sciences, as Mr Speaker pointed out. I recognise there is an issue with women taking physics, but I believe that people who can achieve grade A at maths, chemistry and biology are probably just as capable of achieving at physics. If there is some way in which we can do a physics catch-up course to get more women into engineering who might not have been successful at getting on to their first choice degree course, that will be welcome. After my initial reservations, I encouraged my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Sciences to progress those kinds of schemes.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend might find it interesting to learn that a lot of university engineering courses require maths and further maths. That combination is putting off quite a lot of aspirant engineers. They might well have physics but perhaps do not have the double maths A-level. It is important to put that on the record.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point—I was not aware of that. I could spend another 20 minutes talking about what has happened to A-levels. Sadly, almost all worthy undergraduate degrees in science and engineering have stretched to four years now, partly because the curriculum covered at A-level is not as broad as it used to be. I am not saying, by the way, that that is necessarily a bad thing, but so far those four-year courses are how universities seem to have reacted to the fact that now such breadth of knowledge is not covered by the time people are 18.

I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend has said and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Sciences those thoughts on that barrier to becoming an engineer. Unless it is specifically connected to a curriculum issue, it seems a bit arbitrary.

I have skipped forward in my speech somewhat. I appreciate I have been talking for some time, Mr Robertson, but I would like to cover a few more issues. When I have discussed some of them in the past, I have been accused of being a bit nutty and thinking people are sexist. One thing we talk about in the report is implementing training about unconscious bias. That is simply a way of challenging people about their instinctive bias. We all have it, by the way: nobody can say that they are not biased at all. Training on unconscious bias is a sense check for people, so that when they are recruiting or promoting, or are discussing talent, they are not simply looking for people who are like themselves. It stops the mini-me syndrome that is evident.

[Mrs Spelman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will in one moment. One of the most interesting witnesses we talked to was from British Aerospace. That company has taken unconscious bias training to quite a new level. All managers are trained in it. When it has talent reviews, it makes sure that women are represented. Indeed, with recruitment and promotion it ensures that there is at least one woman on the panel of interviewers and one on the panel of interviewees. British Aerospace has seen a significant change in its recruitment and promotion and believes that its business is better as a consequence. I pay tribute to British Aerospace for that approach.

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is being generous in taking a further intervention. Does she agree that we ought to lead by example? Parliamentarians should have unconscious bias training, and perhaps a good time to do that is during the induction programme for new MPs. In particular, new male MPs who come from a male-dominated profession would benefit hugely from unconscious bias training.

[Dr Coffey]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s thinking on that point. She should make that suggestion in writing to Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the House of Commons; it is a good idea.

[Pauline Latham]

Further to that point, would it not be better to give unconscious bias training to Members of Parliament who have been here for a long time, rather than new Members of Parliament? Members who joined Parliament in 2010 do not have the same bias as some older Members.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

I will not take that personally.

[Dr Coffey]

I am sure nobody was talking about you, Mr Robertson. I recognise that issue, too. I will not get into the discussions that I have had with other colleagues, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire that it would be useful for there to be such training in the current Parliament.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way. I want to give grist to her mill by saying that the oldest law firm in our country routinely undertakes unconscious bias training. If it is good enough for that firm, it must be good enough for Members of Parliament.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I understand that the management board and Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills were invited to do unconscious bias training, although I believe that the only Minister who was able to do it was my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I agree that we should be proactive. There are companies that have offered to run courses for MPs. That has been on my to-do list for some time, and I will ensure that it gets done.

Our report recommended that companies should normalise flexible and part-time working. We should encourage companies to review their culture so talent does not drain away from the pipeline unnecessarily. Evidence shows that the best way to make flexible working a standard practice is to ensure that it is a non-gender issue. Companies know that they have a role in inspiring members of the next generation in the subjects they take and their career choices.

Finally, I come to our recommendation about head-hunters, for whom there is already a voluntary code of conduct. I want to draw Members’ attention to the review undertaken by Charlotte Sweeney at the instigation of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable). It was launched earlier this week, and it looks at the voluntary code of conduct.

Head-hunters can play a significant role in helping us to reach Lord Davies’s target of ensuring that 25% of board members are female. I welcome the report’s ambition that the code should be a minimum standard and that we should aspire to more. To achieve that, we must encourage as many head-hunters as possible to sign up to the code.

One way of promoting the code is for the Government to lead by example. I am encouraging the Cabinet Office to ensure that all head-hunters used by the Government and their agencies are signatories to the code. We know that currently they are not. I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden about that issue, and I will take it up further.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I recently met some senior women in higher education, who said that head-hunters are a barrier to their progressing to senior positions, such as vice-chancellorships of universities. The hon. Lady is talking about a good measure.

[Dr Coffey]

I find that fascinating. I have not thought about higher education because I have been focusing on business, but I will add that to the discussion that we will soon be having with Cabinet Office advisers.

Charlotte Sweeney’s report stated that the use of the code should be extended to the executive pipeline. That is music to my ears. We seek to persuade the Government and business to back the initiative. It is where the most difficult challenges lie, but it is vital to ensuring long-term progress. The report that I co-authored made a similar recommendation. I look forward to the forthcoming head-hunter summit, which my hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and I will be chairing, and which will allow us to have a discussion about what is happening to the code, how we can improve it and what we can do to extend it further. I am excited about that initiative, which will take place within the next month.

Locally, we in Suffolk recognise the value of women’s contribution to the economy. I pay tribute to the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, which has launched a campaign to help women fulfil their economic potential. A report by the LEP established that a woman working full-time in Suffolk will, over her career, earn £332,000 less than a man, and will pay £83,000 less in tax. The LEP is right to note that those employment and pay gaps represent lost income for families, lost opportunities for growth and lost prosperity for the county.

I have spoken for considerably longer than is my wont, but I feel that the report that we put together last year and whose recommendations we continue to follow up deserves a good airing in Parliament. We can all unite around this issue, although I expect that Government Members are not keen to legislate; our ambitions are elsewhere. There are a number of initiatives that we should support. We should be pleased that 37% of start-up loans went to women, and we should be pleased by the recommendations and initiatives undertaken by the Women’s Business Council. We should be pleased that this agenda is firmly on the map for the Government and the Opposition.

It is a waste to our economy if women who want to are not able to work at the top of industries, universities and the public sector. We should put our shoulders to the wheel and keep pushing. There will be a tipping point at which women start to play a full part in business, the economy and politics.

[Mr Jim Sheridan in the Chair]

14:57

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

It was a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am sorry that you are leaving, but you are being replaced by the lovely Mr Sheridan, under whose chairmanship it is also a pleasure to serve.

It is great to be here for this excellent debate on international women’s day. Many important issues have been covered at length, as one is able to do in a three-hour debate when half our number are engaged in an important debate in the main Chamber. However, what we have lacked in quantity we have more than made up for in quality. The debate has not suffered for the lack of Members present.

I am pleased to be in the debate with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), who has organised a full programme of excellent events today, culminating with tea with the Speaker in Speaker’s House for women MPs who are being shadowed by young women from their constituencies. Most of us are being shadowed by at least one young woman today, although the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) is being shadowed by six—she is a pied piper leading the way on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth for organising today’s events, which are appreciated by us and the young women who are shadowing us. I thank the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for securing the debate and enabling us to gather here to talk about such important issues.

Women helping and inspiring other women is obviously a key recurring theme of international women’s day. It is right that we promote it as a means of increasing women’s participation in the economy and public life, particularly at the higher echelons. When it comes to the scale of the challenges that we still face in promoting women in the workplace and harnessing their potential to contribute to the economic success of the country, everyone needs to pull together in the same direction to achieve the kind of change that we need.

The Minister will be well aware that the director general of the Confederation of British Industry made an important intervention on that theme earlier this week, on the back of a PricewaterhouseCoopers report that ranked Britain 18th out of 27 OECD countries for the participation of women in the economy. He rightly called for the current generation of top executives to set a much better example and really drive through the changes that will see women progress much further in the private sector. As part of that, he advocated the use of targets for women in senior positions, as a signal to the whole organisation that its leaders want those changes to happen.

That call has seemingly been heard by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who has asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission for advice on whether all-women shortlists for top jobs will be legal. That apparent reversal in the Government’s position is very welcome, as indeed it was to hear the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire talk about the fact that her party is now looking at all-women shortlists. As she knows, I was selected under an all-women shortlist, and they have been very successful for the Labour party in raising the number of women in Parliament, so it is very welcome to hear that her party is looking at that.

With regard to top jobs, targets are not just a means of promoting equality, which is an important end in itself; firms with greater representation of women in the boardroom and in senior positions throughout the organisation are much more likely to be successful businesses. However, the Minister and her colleagues might want to look a little closer to home. This is where, in this celebratory debate, I may come across as a bit critical, but I am the Opposition spokesperson, so you would surely expect nothing less, Mr Sheridan. It is also important to be brutally honest when discussing these important issues, and not just talk about the good bits.

I asked a series of parliamentary questions and I was quite shocked at some of the answers. Almost half of Government Departments are failing to meet the targets for women on boards that Ministers expect of top businesses. It is particularly poor to see that the Ministry of Defence, for instance, has no women on its board at all, and that only two Departments have more women than men on their boards. That is symbolic of a wider trend in senior appointments by the Government since 2010. Only 17 out of 114 Privy Counsellors appointed are women, and 13 out of 85 policy tsars are women. Fewer than one in five ambassadors and a quarter of permanent secretaries appointed since 2010 have been women.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

On the point about public appointments and women, I have been chasing Government Departments since 9 February—for a month—to try to find out what proportion of paid public appointments are given to women. I keep going round a particular circle, which gets me to a published statement by the Cabinet Office that gives the total number of appointments of men and women but does not state how many are paid. Frankly, the vast majority of those appointments are, I think, women to the magistracy, because the vast majority are in the Ministry of Justice. We really need those figures to be more transparent.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Mrs Spelman]

rose—

[Mrs Hodgson]

I think I am just about to be intervened on by somebody who might have the answer.

[Mrs Spelman]

Just for the record, the Government achieved a 50:50 ratio of men and women in the role of permanent secretary when a female permanent secretary was appointed to my Department in 2012. Much more interesting questions are why there is such an attrition rate among those women in senior positions, and why there might have been a falling away.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am not sure that that answers the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but perhaps the Minister will glean the answer before her winding-up contribution.

This point is important, because if the Government expect to inspire and/or cajole top businesses to meet the 25% target for women on boards, which is a very welcome target and we certainly should expect them to meet it, they have to show much stronger leadership on the issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how she will ensure that that happens.

Coming back to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, one of the most telling graphs was on the proportion of women in full-time employment; the UK came last but two. That echoes the findings of the recent Institute for Public Policy Research report, “Childmind the gap”. In more than two thirds of the countries it surveyed, fewer than 30% of mothers worked part time—that is, for less than 30 hours. In the UK, it is more than 60%, so that is more than double the proportion of mothers working part time in this country than in the vast majority of others surveyed. We know that women are working part time either because they cannot find full-time jobs, or because they cannot afford or are unable to organise the child care, especially if they work unsociable or atypical hours. The Department for Work and Pensions’ own survey found that 43% of parents who have kids aged three to four and would like to work, or to work longer hours, cite affordability of child care as a barrier to doing so.

That is unsurprising, given that parents are being hit by what I call a triple whammy. First, child care costs are increasing way ahead of wages; according to the Family and Childcare Trust report a couple of days ago, costs for nursery care have risen by 27% since 2009 and continue to rise higher than inflation. They are now the largest family outgoing, outstripping even the average family mortgage. The right hon. Member for Meriden mentioned that, too. The second part of the triple whammy is that places are being lost; we have 1,500 fewer childminders and 900 fewer nurseries since the election, and the same report from the Family and Childcare Trust found that nearly half of local authorities—49%—do not have enough places for working parents. To round it off, the third element is that support for those on low and middle incomes through tax credits has been cut.

That is creating not only a cost of living crisis, but a cost of working crisis, which is bad for business and bad for the Treasury. The IPPR’s study suggests that a 10 percentage point increase in maternal employment rates to bring the UK more in line with our more successful European neighbours would bring a net benefit to the public purse of £1.45 billion a year. It also estimates that increasing the rate of full-time work among those mothers who already work part time by just three percentage points would generate a net benefit of £450 million a year. The study goes on to estimate that by equalising the labour force participation rates of men and women, the UK could increase its GDP per capita by 0.5% a year, with potential gains of 10% by 2030.

Because we on the Labour side of the House want to achieve those fiscal and economic gains under a future Labour Government, every working family will receive 25 hours of free, high-quality child care for their three and four-year-olds for 38 weeks a year—an increase of 10 hours a week on the current offer. That is help worth £1,500 a year per child per working family, paid for from a levy on the banks. As convenience is the key concern for parents of school-age children, our proposed primary child care guarantee will ensure that they will be able to access breakfast and after-school clubs through their school between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm.

Of course, the other side of making work pay is decent incomes for women and, certainly, parity with male colleagues in comparable jobs. In December, official figures revealed that the gender pay gap increased in 2012-13 for the first time in five years to an average of 10%. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough that for older women the figure is actually 18%. Under Labour, the gender pay gap fell by 7.7%, and it is deeply disappointing to see those gains going into reverse. Concerted effort is clearly needed to put us back on a positive course, but perhaps the most significant issue is that women are often clustered in low-wage jobs, as well as being far more likely to have poor conditions and even zero-hours contracts.

One in four women earns less than the living wage, meaning that even if she is in work and works as many hours as she can, she will still struggle to make ends meet. That cannot be right. Labour wants to make work pay for women by allowing firms to claim back one third of the cost of raising their staff’s wages to the level of the living wage, which is currently £8.80 in London. We will also strengthen the minimum wage and tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and agency workers, which again are a feature of the sectors in which women are over-represented.

Clearly, there is also an issue about aspirations among young women. We heard about that from a number of hon. Members. I do not think that aspirations are a problem for the young women shadowing us today, but I do know that far too many girls are still channelled down the “hair or care” path in school and further education, whereas their male counterparts will be pushed towards apprenticeships and other vocational qualifications with higher earning potential. The Government, to their credit, have recently been making a lot of positive noises on that, and particularly on the issue of driving up participation in STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—in further and higher education.

I echo comments made by a few hon. Members about maths and science subjects. I am pleased to announce that my daughter is studying for her final exams in her maths A-level, which she will take later this year, but she is one of only a handful of girls in her A-level class. On average, girls make up only about 25% of maths A-level classes across the country. That must change because, as the right hon. Member for Meriden said, maths is one of the most valuable A-levels to obtain.

The one thing that the Government could do much better is the provision of high-quality careers advice. We have these conversations with young girls, but particularly important is individual face-to-face advice, which can inspire girls to aim higher, telling them how to get to where they want to be and giving them ideas, rather than reinforcing the old stereotypes and a learned lack of aspiration, which still holds back far too many of our young people.

Of course, employers have their part to play in all this. Yes, we need women in leadership roles, but also right along the pipeline. I know that there are many great employers in the UK. At the end of January, I met representatives of a dozen or so, who were telling me about some of the great packages of support that they make available for working mums, particularly while they are on maternity leave and when they come back to work. The one that I will name today is Ford Motor Company. Ford employs more than 11,000 people in this country and it not only gives its female employees a year’s maternity leave on full pay—I imagine that applications will flood in now—but offers them parenting support and classes, as well as an on-site nursery and emergency child care for when things go wrong—for when the child is ill and cannot come into the nursery. It also has facilities for new mums to breastfeed and express milk at work. Why does Ford do that? Yes, it does it because there is value in being seen as a family-friendly company, but primarily—I asked the company—it does it because it knows that having women in positions of influence over its products and marketing gives it a competitive advantage over its rivals, because women control most of the major purchases in most households. Buying a car is a decision that most women have a big say in. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] And rightly so.

We can see from that example why all those studies have shown that businesses with more women in positions of power outperform their less diverse counterparts. If 50% or more of a firm’s consumers are women, it makes sense to have people at the top of the organisation who know what women want—that is, women. If I may be just a little critical, perhaps that is why the coalition parties are faring so badly among female voters at the moment; there are not enough women in the top positions.

However, despite the clear common-sense case for promoting women in business, there are clearly still some bosses from the Nigel Farage school of equality. According to Maternity Action, 60,000 women are forced out of their jobs a year because they have the gall to become pregnant. To make matters worse, the Government are now forcing those women who have the energy and time, while pregnant or coping with a new baby, to take their employer to a tribunal to pay £1,200 to do so. The Minister probably believes that we are scaremongering when we talk about those fees, but we do feel that they will often put off quite vulnerable women from holding their employer to account. I do not think that those women see it that way; they do not think that we are scaremongering.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is looking into pregnancy discrimination; that is very good. The Government have funded a report, and I sincerely hope that the Minister is pressing for the time scale for the report to be as short as possible, so that she will have the opportunity to act on its recommendations before the general election in 2015. None of us wants to take a punitive approach to equality, but given that we know how much better companies perform when women are not forced out, there is clearly as much of an economic imperative to stamp out discrimination as there is a moral one.

Of course, a successful economy needs to embrace the creative and entrepreneurial flair of its citizens in setting up their own businesses and creating new jobs and wealth. Unfortunately, as we know, fewer than one in five SMEs are wholly or majority-owned by women, which hints at specific barriers to women striking out on their own. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who is no longer in her place, has done a huge amount of work in this area and chairs the all-party group on women and enterprise, which I have recently joined. However, the silver living to that statistic is that it hints at a huge untapped pool of talent and creativity that could be put to good use. That is one reason why Labour has said that, instead of the Government’s corporation tax cut for the largest firms, we will help more people to start their own business by cutting business rates in 2015 and freezing them again in 2016 for small businesses.

The economy may well be back in growth after a period of sustained malaise, but that does not lessen the importance of doing everything that we can to enable women to contribute. The twin ends of greater equality and a more productive economy are not mutually exclusive; they are intrinsically linked. Greater female participation, better pay and conditions, greater progression and greater representation of women in senior and board-level positions are not ends in themselves. They are the means by which the UK can remain at the top table of world economies over the next 20 years, or achieve a respectable position in the Prime Minister’s “global race”. I admit that the Government are doing some things, and Opposition Members warmly welcome them, but this debate has been a timely reminder that until we are making real progress on all the measures necessary, we can and must do more.

Women are ready to play their part; in fact, they have always been ready. It is the responsibility of all of us, on whatever side of the House we sit, to remove any barriers in their way. We must not pull the ladder up behind us, which I am sure none of us in this Chamber would do, but ensure that we lower it and give a helping hand up to even more women, to enable them to follow us and successful women in all sectors and, ultimately, to achieve their full potential.

15:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this very important debate. Both are passionate advocates of this agenda; in fact, the pair of them are fantastic role models in their own right.

I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have spoken. They have made excellent contributions. We have had speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, the hon. Member for Slough, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). They have made important contributions, but there have also been important interventions. We have heard not only from the many extraordinary women in this place, but from many enlightened men who recognise how critical the issues are. I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of a Government who are wholeheartedly committed to the cause. I want to summarise what the Government are doing, but I will do my best to respond to some of the many interventions and requests for clarification.

Today’s debate has given us a chance to reflect on and celebrate the enormous progress that has been made in this country, towards equality for women in the workplace, and in women’s contribution to the economy—progress that the generations before us could only imagine. I want to focus on two main areas: the growing importance of women in the economic recovery, and the need to shape our workplaces to enable women to be full participants, including the measures that the Government are taking to achieve that important transformation. I hope to continue the non-partisan tone of the debate. There is broad agreement on the issues across all parties, and we can all celebrate the increasing success of women in the economy. We should work closely together, not against each other, on that.

Securing economic recovery remains the most urgent task facing the Government. The evidence shows that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working, but, as the Chancellor said, the recovery is not yet secure. There is still much more to do, but we can take encouragement from the positive signs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and the hon. Member for Slough both mentioned that there are now 14 million women working. As well as being the highest number since records began that also represents the highest employment rate, and it is quite an achievement. Of course there is more to do, but there are 500,000 more women in work than there were when the Government took office. The pace of change is also quickening. Women’s employment increased by 93,000 on the quarter, and is now 199,000 higher than it was a year ago. I am also heartened that many more women see self-employment and enterprise as a viable option. There are 175,000 more women in self-employment than there were in May 2010, and we know for example that a third of beneficiaries of the Government’s StartUp loan programme are women. That is excellent news for women and for the health and competitiveness of the economy.

There is still, however, more we can do to help women to progress in the workplace and in business, which brings me to my second theme—shaping our workplaces to enable women to be full participants. In many ways, our workplaces have been transformed in recent decades. A key feature of that transformation has been the rising number of women in work and increasingly in senior roles across the whole economy. Thankfully, the rules are changing. Flexible working is no longer seen as a necessary evil to accommodate women with caring responsibilities. It is now rightly seen by leading businesses as good practice, which enables not just women, but all of us who require some flexibility in our increasingly busy lives, to make a full and proper contribution at work. Therefore, from June, we will extend the right to request flexible working to all employees, to continue driving that culture change across business, to the point where there is no longer the concept of full-time or part-time working—just the concept of working.

Extending to all the right to request flexible working will also help to challenge the unfair stigma that those that need to work flexibly are somehow less committed to their employer. Through the introduction of shared parental leave next year we are also working to end the assumption—another stigma, in my opinion—that women will be the main carer of a child; we will also be allowing fathers to play a bigger part in the first year of their children’s lives. That will help families to juggle their home and work life, and it will also lessen the negative impact on careers of time spent out of the workplace. The hon. Member for Slough pointed out that flexible working and shared parental leave should help families to balance their busy lives. She focused in her speech on the contribution made by women aged over 50, and I am sure that she will be pleased that the Women’s Business Council flagged up in its conclusions the “tremendous untapped potential” of women

“in the third phase of their working lives”.

The council has put out a marker, which is exciting; I look forward to working closely with it and others to develop that potential.

I am pleased to confirm that from October next year we will introduce tax-free child care, which will save working families up to £1,200 per child. Those are important and necessary changes, which will directly address issues that women face in the workplace, but we also need to tackle the cultures and attitudes that often prevent women from the reaching the top. Through our continuing work with Lord Davies and the business community, we will ensure that more talented women take their rightful place in the boardroom and, once there, provide a better balance of views and experience to ensure that businesses maximise their potential.

[Sarah Newton]

Did the Minister read the report produced by the Select Committee on Science and Technology following our inquiry into the number of women in senior positions in science—particularly universities? I think that she will find our recommendations helpful in getting women scientists and engineers to play their full part in the economy.

[Mrs Grant]

That is an important point. There never seem to be enough hours in the day, somehow, but I promise to look at the report and talk to my hon. Friend about its conclusions.

Since Lord Davies reported in February 2011, there have been unprecedented changes in the composition of boardrooms. Women now make up 20.4% of the directors of FTSE100 companies, which is up from 12.5%, and there are now just two all-male FTSE100 boards; that figure is down from 21. Again, that is great news for the economy, but it is vital that we maintain the momentum. We need just 51 more women on FTSE100 boards by 2015 to achieve the 25% target set by Lord Davies.

The pay gap is an important issue. I do not think that it has been raised directly in today’s debate, but it is never too far from my mind. It is a matter of concern that women are still disadvantaged in pay. We are addressing that in two main ways. First, for the vast majority of businesses who want to do the right thing by their female employees, we are encouraging good practice through the voluntary “Think, Act, Report” initiative. More than 170 organisations representing more than 2 million employees are showing that they are committed to equality in their business. As the Minister responsible for tourism I was pleased to announce this morning at a Women 1st women in tourism event that Merlin Entertainments, Brakes Group, easyJet, Advantage Travel and CH&Co catering have now signed up to that important initiative.

However, we shall also take tough action against employers who do not do the right thing, and from October when a tribunal finds that an employer has broken equal pay laws it will order a full pay audit, to prevent continuing sex discrimination in pay matters.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

One of the things that my constituents say to me is that because they cannot get legal aid and proper support for tribunals, they are less likely to take such cases to a tribunal. A policy that triggers action against a company only after a successful tribunal claim has been made is likely to be less effective in future than it would have been in the past.

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Lady has raised that issue before, and I know that she is concerned about it. As she knows, there is a remission system, so when people do not have the money to pay the fee, the state will step in. That remission system has been around for some years, and it has worked very well. I trust that it will continue to work well to ensure that people have access to justice, a concept that is very important to me and to others.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I want to point out that I raised the question of the gender pay gap. I mentioned that in 2012-13, the gender pay gap for full-time workers rose for the first time in five years to 10%. I have listened to the Minister telling us about the measures that the Government will take, but will she give us an assurance that the gender gap will not increase further during her term of office?

[Mrs Grant]

I apologise to the shadow Minister for not mentioning the fact that she had raised the gender pay gap; I, of course, heard her. It is an important issue, and I think we are making progress. The overall gender pay gap still stands at just under 20%, which in my opinion is completely unacceptable, but I believe that the two measures that we are taking—one of scrutiny in relation to compulsory pay audits and the other about transparency through “Think, Act, Report”—will have the desired effect.

A number of interventions have been made by hon. Members today. I am not sure whether I will be able to deal with all of them, but I will do my best. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden raised the geographic disparity in women’s employment rates and suggested that cultural factors might be partly responsible. There are a number of factors at play, and cultural heritage may well be one of them. We want to help all girls and women to fulfil their potential, and we have a programme of work for that purpose to raise girls’ aspirations, which includes a school and business partnership and a resource for parents to help them support their daughters with their career choices. A number of excellent organisations are helping us, including QED-UK, a project that supports women of Pakistani heritage into employment in south Yorkshire, which is making excellent progress.

The hon. Member for Slough asked whether I would discuss with the Department for Education the issue of young girls receiving advertisements for jobs ancillary to sex work. I am appalled that young women are receiving adverts for jobs ancillary to adult entertainment, and I will certainly raise that issue with my ministerial colleagues.

The hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal spoke in detail and with great authority about women on boards. I share their concern that where women are getting board roles, they are more likely to be successful in non-executive roles. If we are to make real and proper progress in that area, it is essential that we focus on developing the executive pipeline. I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of an organisation called Women 1st, to which I gave a keynote speech this morning, which is trailblazing in this area. I look forward to hosting and chairing an event involving head-hunters in the next few weeks with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and others.

The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who is no longer in her seat, remarked on the poor showing of the UK, in comparison with the United States, on enterprise. If she were here, I would be saying to her that the Women’s Business Council is prioritising women’s entrepreneurship. At a meeting yesterday, members of the council discussed what they could do as leaders in industry, and they discussed issues such as positive role models and positive behaviours. The council is determined to make further progress in that area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal spoke in detail about science, technology, engineering and maths, about which she knows an awful lot. I agree with her that we need to encourage more girls to study STEM subjects and raise their aspirations. That topic will be discussed at the United Nations next week, at the Commission on the Status of Women. I am happy to say that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), and Nicola Yates, a Women’s Business Council member from GlaxoSmithKline, will be advocating on behalf of the UK the need to support girls into those disciplines and sharing best practice with a truly international audience.

One of our enlightened men—unfortunately he is no longer in his place—my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), raised the need to get our girls to do A-level maths, which is an important issue. Action is being taken, and £200 million of Government investment has gone into STEM higher education teaching facilities, and higher education institutions will be required to match funding. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is also funding a programme of work to promote diversity in the STEM work force.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who has left the room, spoke about men as agents for change. We need to have the men with us on this agenda if we are to make progress. I always say that when courageous women meet with enlightened men, there is very little that they cannot achieve. I am pleased that he made that contribution. On 20 February, John Timpson of the Women’s Business Council hosted a round-table meeting with male CEOs to develop strategies to support flexible and modern workplaces. It is important for male leaders to demonstrate leadership in that area, and their doing so shows commitment and best practice.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Slough raised the issue of women and public appointments, especially in Whitehall. The Government are absolutely committed to increasing the diversity of public appointments, and we have recently established a centre for public appointments, which works right across Whitehall and with executive search industries to modernise the recruitment practices to public boards. The Government’s aim, which the shadow Minister may be aware of, is for 50% of new public appointments to be women by the end of the Parliament, and we have recently published an action plan for achieving that. We are making progress; 37% of public appointments made by Whitehall Departments in 2012-13 were women, and that has risen to 45% in the past six months.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

If I can just finish my point. The hon. Member for Slough asked how many of the appointments were paid; I do not know, but I would be happy to look into that and write to her in due course. If that is the issue she wanted to raise, I hope that I can push on; if not, I will sit down.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It is the issue I was going to raise, and I am grateful to the Minister for her offer to write to me. However, I wish I could get a reply to the question that I have asked every Department. I just want the number of appointments that are paid to be in the public domain. We do not currently know, and that information ought to be published. If the Minister could make that happen, I would be very grateful.

[Mrs Grant]

I shall do my very best to provide the hon. Lady with the information she has requested. I would also be happy to meet her if she needs further information once she has received what I will endeavour to send to her.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I raised the issue of departmental boards. They are obviously not representative, and I know that the Minister has said that that will be addressed, but are departmental board positions paid or unpaid?

[Mrs Grant]

May I write to the hon. Lady on that, just as I will write to the hon. Member for Slough?

This has been a wide-ranging and informative debate. It is also a critical debate for our society and economy. I would like to conclude with a reminder of some of the findings of the Women’s Business Council, which reported last June and continues to work with the Government and business to drive forward this important agenda. It found that by equalising the labour force participation of men and women, the UK could increase economic growth by 0.5% per year, with potential gains of 10% of GDP by 2030. It also found that if women were setting up and running new businesses at the same rate as men, we could have an extra 1 million female entrepreneurs.

As the Prime Minister repeatedly says, we are now in a global race, and, as those figures from the Women’s Business Council show, it is a race that we cannot win unless we make full use of the skills and experience of everyone in our economy. I hope I have made it clear that this Government will do whatever it takes to ensure that we support women in the economy, and to transform the world of work so that many more women have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations.

15:42

[Mrs Spelman]

Thank you for allowing me to wind up the debate, Mr Sheridan. It gives me the opportunity to put on the record the fact that we have been joined by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), which is a very good effort on her part and evidence of how important the Government consider the debate.

We have also been joined by the Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I would like to thank him for coming and encourage him to look, in the report of the debate, at the section in which we discussed progress within the House of Commons, particularly regarding unconscious bias training. There is no room for complacency, as terms and conditions for women in Parliament are not easy, with our long-hours culture and lack of maternity leave—certainly no adjustment leave, as was described. There is a good opportunity for the Chief Whip and his Opposition counterpart, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), to take that forward.

I would like to thank all Members for making the effort to take part in the debate. I thank the hon. Gentlemen who attended and made interventions for their support. If I may set the record straight, a detailed Library brief was indeed provided for the debate, and it was authored by two men, Feargal McGuinness and Chris Rhodes, who deserve thanks for the detailed statistics that they made available to Members. I commend that brief to other Members present.

Finally, I would like to say how much we have enjoyed the presence of many young women who have come today as part of the programme organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), with the encouragement of the Secretary of State. They have been allowed on this special day to see the workings of this Parliament. Shortly they will receive hospitality from Mr Speaker, and later from the Prime Minister at No. 10. We hope that they will go away as inspired as the Mars employee who went on to become the first female astronaut, as we heard today. On this special day, we celebrate her achievement, and the achievement of all women around the globe.

Question put and agreed to.

15:44

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

Thursday 6 March 2014

Local Planning

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

The coalition Government are committed to reforming the planning system to make it simpler, clearer and easier for people to use, allowing local communities to shape where development should and should not go. Planning should not be the exclusive preserve of lawyers, developers or town hall officials.

We are also committed to ensuring that countryside and environmental protections continue to be safeguarded, and devolving power down not just to local councils, but also down to neighbourhoods and local residents.

We have already taken a series of steps to cut unnecessary red tape, such as the streamlined national planning policy framework reducing 1,000 pages of planning guidance to less than 50, revoking the last Administration’s bureaucratic regional strategies and extending permitted development rights to make it easier to get empty and underused buildings back into public use. I would like to update the House on progress on this ongoing work.

An accessible planning system

In October 2012, we invited Lord Taylor of Goss Moor to lead a review into the reams of planning practice guidance that we have inherited from the last Administration.

My Department subsequently held a consultation on the group’s proposals and, in August 2013, we launched our proposed streamlined planning practice guidance in draft, consolidating 7,000 pages of complex and often repetitive documents. Today, we are launching the final version of that practice guidance through an accessible website.

We have carefully considered representations made on the draft practice guidance and feedback from hon. Members and noble peers in recent parliamentary debates.

I would particularly note that we are:

Issuing robust guidance on flood risk, making it crystal clear that councils need to consider the strict tests set out in national policy, and where these are not met, new development on flood risk sites should not be allowed.

Reaffirming green belt protection, noting that unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute very special circumstances justifying inappropriate development.

Making clear that local plans can pass the test of soundness where authorities have not been able to identify land for growth in years 11 to 15 of their local plan, which often can be the most challenging part for a local authority.

Making clear that windfalls can be counted over the whole local plan period.

Explaining how student housing, housing for older people and the reuse of empty homes can be included when assessing housing need.

Ensuring that infrastructure is provided to support new development, and noting how infrastructure constraints should be considered when assessing suitability of sites.

Stressing the importance of bringing brownfield land into use and made clear that authorities do not have to allocate sites on the basis of providing the maximum possible return for landowners and developers.

Noting that councils should also be able to consider the delivery record—or lack of—of developers or landowners, including a history of unimplemented permissions. This will also serve to encourage developers to deliver on their planning permissions.

Incorporating the guidance on renewable energy—including heritage and amenity—published during last summer and making it clearer in relation to solar farms, that visual impact is a particular factor for consideration.

Allowing past over-supply of housing to be taken into account when assessing housing needs.

On the five-year supply of sites, confirming that assessments are not automatically outdated by new household projections.

Clarifying when councils can consider refusing permission on the grounds of prematurity in relation to draft plans.

Encouraging joint working between local authorities, but clarifying that the duty to co-operate is not a duty to accept. We have considered and rejected the proposals of Her Majesty’s Opposition to allow councils to undermine green belt protection and dump development on their neighbours’ doorstep.

We will today also cancel the previous planning practice guidance documents being replaced by the new guidance; a list has been placed in the Library of the House. The planning practice guidance will be updated as needed and users can sign up for email alerts on any changes, or view these revisions directly on the site. The online resource is at: http://planningguidance.planningportal. gov.uk/

Encouraging reuse of empty and underused buildings

In August 2013, my Department published a consultation paper on a further set of greater flexibilities for change of use. Further reforms will save time and money for applicants and councils, encourage the reuse of empty and underused buildings and further support brownfield regeneration while ensuring regard to potential flood risk.

New homes: retail to residential change of use

Outside key shopping areas, such as town centres, we want underused shops to be brought back into productive use to help breathe new life into areas that are declining due to changing shopping habits. This will not only provide more homes, but increase the resident population near town centres, thereby increasing footfall and supporting the main high street. Reforms will allow change of use from shops (Al) and financial and professional services (A2) to houses (C3). This change of use will not apply to land protected by article 1(5) of the general permitted development order—national parks, the broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservations areas, world heritage sites.

We recognise the importance of retaining adequate provision of services that are essential to the local community such as post offices. Consideration will be given to the impact on local services when considering the potential loss of a particular shop. The onus will be on the local planning authority to establish that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the sustainability of a key shopping area or on local services should they wish to refuse the conversion. When considering the effect on local services they will have to take into account whether there is reasonable prospect of the premises being occupied by another retailer. Local planning authorities will need to have robust evidence base to justify any decision not to permit change of use using these prior approval tests.

In addition, to increase access to retail banking and to encourage new entrants, shops (Al) will be able to change to banks, building societies, credit unions and friendly societies, within the A2 use class. This does not cover betting shops or payday loan shops.

New homes: agricultural to residential change of use

These reforms will make better use of redundant or underused agricultural buildings, increasing rural housing without building on the countryside. Up to 450 square metres of agricultural buildings on a farm will be able to change to provide a maximum of three houses.

We recognise the importance to the public of safeguarding environmentally protected areas, so this change of use will not apply in article 1(5) land, for example national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, we expect national parks and other local planning authorities to take a positive and proactive approach to sustainable development, balancing the protection of the landscape with the social and economic well-being of the area. National parks and other protected areas are living communities whose young people and families need access to housing if their communities are to grow and prosper. I would note that a prior approval process will allow for flooding issues to be addressed.

Change of use: extending access to education

We also propose to extend the existing permitted development rights for change of use to state-funded schools to additionally cover registered nurseries. Agricultural buildings up to 500 square metres will also be able to change to state-funded schools and registered nurseries.

I believe that these are a practical and reasonable set of changes that will help facilitate locally led development, promote brownfield regeneration and promote badly needed new housing at no cost to the taxpayer. The reforms complement both the coalition Government’s decentralisation agenda and our long-term economic plan.

Routine Call-Out (Mali)

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

With the expiry of the call-out order made on 11 March 2013, a new order has been made under section 56(l)(a) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into service to support operations in Mali. While only a small number of reservists have been mobilised for service in Mali to date, they have made an important contribution. We wish to continue to be able to draw on the specialist skills and experience available within our reserve forces. We plan to call out only willing and available reservists, who have the support of their employer. The order takes effect from 10 March 2014 and ceases to have effect on 9 March 2015.

Central African Republic

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

On 9 December 2013, Official Report, column 1WS, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a written statement to the House on the response to the developing situation in the Central African Republic.

UN Security Council Resolution 2134 was approved on 28 January 2014, and authorised an EU military operation in Central African Republic. The UK Government endorsed this EU mission to protect civilians and provide additional security and stability in Bangui. As part of the French contribution to this EU mission a UK staff officer, who is currently on exchange with the French military, will deploy to Bangui. This staff officer will be supporting the EU force headquarters and will not be deploying in a combat role. This UK support for French-led operations demonstrates the close relationship envisaged in the Lancaster House treaties of 2010.

Teacher Training Skills Tests

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

I would like to set out for the House some actions we have taken to address weaknesses which have recently been identified in the marking of skills tests for prospective teachers.

The numeracy and literacy tests for prospective teachers were developed, in the current format, from 2009 onwards, under a contract let by the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA). When the TDA was abolished, responsibility for administering the skills tests was transferred to the Teaching Agency from April 2012 and the Standards and Testing Agency (STA) from November 2013.

A review of the skills tests undertaken by the STA has identified some errors in the marking of some questions in the tests, which have led to some candidates being awarded or denied a small number of marks incorrectly. These problems were present during the TDA’s administration of the skills tests and date back at least as far as April 2010.

The errors causing the incorrect marking have been rectified by the STA, so the skills tests being taken now are not affected. However, the errors have meant that some candidates who sat the skills tests in the past received the incorrect results.

In the 2012-13 academic year, 721 candidates (less than 1% of the total) were incorrectly awarded a maximum of three marks and given a pass in error. Of these 721 candidates, 505 were awarded one extra mark, 189 were awarded two extra marks, and 27 were awarded three extra marks.

In addition, between October 2012 and now, 27 candidates (0.02% of the total) were incorrectly awarded a fail and have not subsequently gone on to pass at further attempts.

With respect to those candidates who were incorrectly awarded a pass, many will have subsequently gone on to undertake the other steps necessary to gain qualified teacher status, or be in the process of doing so, and will, through this, have had to demonstrate their competence to teach. Indeed, even had these candidates been properly failed at the point of taking the test, it is likely that many would have retaken the tests and been passed at subsequent attempts. Given these points we are satisfied that no further action in respect of these people is required, indeed it would be unjust to them to do so.

With respect to those candidates who were incorrectly awarded a fail and have not gone on to pass at further attempts, they will be awarded a pass retrospectively. The STA wrote to these candidates yesterday and has followed-up by email.

It would require extensive data analysis to determine how many candidates who took the tests prior to October 2012 were affected by the same errors. My officials estimate this work would cost £140,000 and take six months to complete. Given that any candidates incorrectly awarded a fail could, at that time, have re-sat the tests an unlimited number of times, and given that we do not propose to take action in respect of those candidates incorrectly awarded a pass, there would be little practical benefit arising from this analysis, beyond certainty over the number of candidates affected. I therefore do not believe it would be an effective use of taxpayers’ money to undertake this work.

As part of its review of the current tests, the STA has also taken the decision to re-design the punctuation section of the literacy test to allow for improved data analysis and quality assurance going forward. The punctuation section has been temporarily removed from the tests while refinements are made. The remaining sections of the literacy tests will be unaffected and we expect to reintroduce the punctuation element to the tests in the autumn of 2014.

The chief executive of the Standards and Testing Agency has looked closely at this matter and assured me that the tests which remain in operation are now reliable, accurate, and fit for purpose.

This Government’s decision to bring the TDA’s functions within the Department has brought greater scrutiny, increased accountability and helped unearth these errors. However, it is deeply regrettable that the tests inherited from the TDA contained flaws which have so directly affected outcomes for some prospective teachers. Action was taken as soon as errors were identified and we are determined to restore absolute confidence in the tests, under the management of the STA.

National Pollinator Strategy

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Following a commitment made in June 2013, I have today launched a consultation on a proposed national pollinator strategy to safeguard the future of pollinators and pollination services. Bees and other insect pollinators play an essential role in our food production and in the diversity of our environment. They face a wide range of environmental pressures, such as habitat loss, pests and diseases, invasive species, use of pesticides and climate change. There are growing concerns that these pressures are leading to declines in the number, diversity and geographical ranges of individual insect pollinator species. We know that the public and Members of this House care deeply about this issue. However there is a great deal of uncertainty about the status of pollinators and what may be causing changes to populations. This is in part due to a patchy evidence base and insufficient monitoring data.

My priority has been to understand what the evidence is telling us and ensure that we are taking the right action. Last summer, an independent expert advisory group, chaired by Professor Charles Godfray, was set up to advise on these matters. This group also provided guidance on the independent report “Status and value of pollinators and pollination services”, published today, which DEFRA commissioned in 2013 to help inform development of the strategy.

The strategy we are consulting on reflects the current evidence and also identifies where we need to know more. It sets out a collaborative plan of action for Government and external organisations to make sure pollinators thrive. This will help provide essential pollination services and benefits for crop production and the wider environment, in line with our commitments in “Biodiversity 2020”. It aims to cover all of the approximately 1,500 insect species that fulfil a pollination role in England.

As we strengthen the evidence base and our understanding of what action is needed increases, the national pollinator strategy will be flexible and adaptive. It will focus on three components:

Investment in research and monitoring to gain a firmer understanding of the nature of the problem and its drivers.

A total of 18 priority actions for Government and others to implement in the interim period, from 2014. These actions are comprehensive, covering management of farmland, towns, cities and public land. They respond to pest and disease risk. The actions also engage the public, sharing knowledge and improving our understanding of the status of pollinators and the service they provide.

A refreshment of our commitment in 2019, once new evidence is available, with a view to updating actions in line with new evidence if necessary.

Government cannot solve this problem alone. Therefore we will continue to work very closely with industry, NGOs, farmers, local government, land managers and others, including the devolved Administrations, to finalise the strategy for publication in summer 2014. Together we will produce an implementation plan, focusing on collaborative action, in the six months after the final strategy is published. I am placing a copy of the strategy and supporting documents in the Libraries of both Houses.

Winter Floods

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Since the start of December we have experienced serious flooding from the sea, rivers, and from groundwater. It has officially been the wettest winter on record.

These extreme conditions have led to the flooding of about 7,000 properties across England. I want to express my deepest sympathy for all those who have been affected and thank everyone who has worked tirelessly to deal with the aftermath; they helped protect 1.3 million properties and over 2,500 square kilometres of farmland.

In a few areas of the country, especially in southern England, some flooding is likely to continue into the coming weeks. However, other parts of the country are now making the transition to recovery. It is therefore right that I update the House on further actions being taken to support recovery and prepare for similar events in future.

Help for Somerset

Six weeks ago I visited Somerset and saw for myself the exceptional impact on the county. Local leaders called for two things: first, immediate help to manage the impact; then, rapid action to dredge the rivers.

On immediate help. Government delivered fast. We saw one of the biggest mobilisations ever to protect people, their homes and their livelihoods from encroaching floodwater.

I also asked Somerset’s councils, IDBs and local leaders, working in partnership, to produce an action plan for the long-term management of the levels and moors. I visited Somerset again yesterday, and I am pleased that they have delivered that plan on time. I am placing a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. The plan includes some immediate actions, such as our commitment to dredge 8 km of the Rivers Parrett and Tone. That is the key thing local people asked for. The Environment Agency will start work as soon as it is safe and practical to do so.

Crucially, the plan also considers how to address flood risk over the longer term. Local partners will set up a new body to take more responsibility for water management on the levels, and will establish new ways of funding this. We will help them to do so.

Enhanced approaches to catchment sensitive farming will allow more water to be retained in the upper catchment. Ensuring new developments meet the highest standards for water and drainage will also help manage local flood risk. The plan also sets out other options for managing flood risk over the longer term, including investment in infrastructure.

DEFRA is providing an additional £10 million for Somerset for flood-related work, and I am pleased to confirm that the whole of Government will be contributing to the aims of the plan. The Department for Transport will provide a further £10 million and the Department for Communities and Local Government £0.5 million. This gives a strong base to take forward work. The challenge for the coming months will be to identify which of several longer-term priorities to take forward, and their specific funding streams. Detailed assessments and business cases will be produced for different investment choices, including how they compare to other projects across the country. The plan provides a framework to address these questions. DEFRA and its agencies will continue to support Somerset in doing so, helping secure a sustainable future for the levels and moors.

Help for fishermen

The Government have already established a range of schemes to support affected households, farmers, businesses and local communities. Today I am announcing further measures to support fishermen, who have been hit hard by recent events. I have decided that they should not bear the cost of Trinity lighthouse dues this year, a move that will benefit the industry by up to £140,000. We will also be making financial support available under the European fisheries fund to reimburse up to 60% of the cost of replacing lost or damaged gear, such as lobster and crab pots. We are working with our agencies and the Local Government Association to ensure all these schemes are easy to access, and are delivered quickly.

Electricity supplies

As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, it is important that we learn the lessons from the recent flooding. That process has begun. For example, many people had their Christmas affected by the disruption we saw to electricity supplies.

The response of the network operators to that was strong, with 95.3% of disrupted customers restored within 24 hours. We are grateful to the staff of network operators who worked over the Christmas period to make that happen, often cancelling their own leave.

However, a review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, also published today, highlights areas for improvement with a clear implementation timeline to ensure that, in future, customers experience as little inconvenience as possible.

Though this review has established 23 actions for industry, and two for DECC, there are two clear priorities:

Ensure that network operators have access to better customer contact details, allowing them to contact proactively those who are disrupted to provide accurate information.

The establishment of a single national number for customers to use to contact their network operator in the event of a disruption.

I am placing a copy of this review in the Libraries of both Houses.

Transport

The severe weather disrupted rail, road, air and sea travel over the winter period. Throughout, the vast majority of transport network owners and operators have done their very best to restore services as quickly as possible and keep the country moving.

This is exemplified by the Network Rail announcement on Tuesday that they will be able to reopen the line at Dawlish two weeks earlier than initially expected. The Government recognise the impact that the weather has had on transport infrastructure. To address these issues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has also commissioned a review into the resilience of our transport networks in a future where we are likely to see more extreme weather events.

Many people were affected by the disruption to services at Gatwick on Christmas eve, when localised flooding caused a loss of power to critical systems at the airport. The subsequent review announced by Gatwick’s CEO has now reported, with 27 recommendations. We welcome this review.

It is now for Gatwick Airport to consider the recommendations and the steps necessary for increasing the resilience of the airport.

Central Government

The Government’s emergency committee COBR has taken effective action over the last three months to ensure that the risks are understood and that local responders have the resources they need. We have acted on every request for assistance received.

Over Christmas and the new year, Departments across Whitehall worked closely together to co-ordinate the Government’s response. However, it became apparent that some organisations—outside central Government—were not so actively engaged. In future, whenever there is a significant risk we will use the COBR system to ensure that all organisations, at both national and local level, are aware and fully prepared well in advance.

In order to further strengthen support and the organisation of Government recovery efforts, the Prime Minister has asked me personally to co-ordinate recovery in Somerset as part of a group of ministerial representatives for flood recovery. Those for other areas have also been confirmed today and I am placing a full list in the Libraries of both Houses.

Local government

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is also ensuring that we learn the lessons from how local authorities have responded to the recent flooding. There have been some excellent examples of local authorities who demonstrated good practice in their response. We will continue to work with local government to set out more clearly what council tax payers can reasonably expect from their councils in an emergency. For instance by providing support outside normal business hours, being a visible part of the local response and giving clear advice to residents and businesses on how to plan for emergencies.

We will continue to keep Parliament informed on the Government’s plans to learn other lessons and improve our resilience to flooding.

Diego Garcia: Lagoon Environment

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

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

I wish to update the House on our work to protect the environment of the British Indian Ocean Territory and, in particular, the island of Diego Garcia which is home to a large UK-US military base.

This Government, and the Government of our most important ally, the United States, value the strategic location of the island of Diego Garcia, and we want to see our partnership there continue.

We also share a deep commitment to the pristine environment of BIOT, and take great steps to minimise the impact of the military presence on Diego Garcia on that environment. This ranges from the troops stationed there regularly taking part in beach clean-ups to remove Indian ocean flotsam that has washed ashore, through conservation efforts with NGOs like the RSPB to remove rats or invasive plants, to a US investment of over $30 million during 2014-15 to protect the shoreline from gradual erosion. Diego Garcia military base operates an environmental protection council which co-ordinates this activity, and the standards governing its behaviour are guided by our own scientific advisers and the most stringent relevant environmental legislation.

One area where we have been working recently with the US to ensure the highest standards of environmental stewardship is in the lagoon of Diego Garcia where we are on a path to recovery and protection of the coral that supports the island above the waves. In April last year it came to our attention that the US vessels moored in the lagoon had been discharging waste water into the lagoon since the establishment of the naval support station there in the early 1980s.

This waste water is treated sewage, and water left over from routine processes like cleaning and cooking. Though the amounts are small in proportion to the size of the lagoon itself, our policy has consistently been that any form of discharge of these substances into the lagoon is prohibited because of clear scientific advice that it would be damaging to coral in the long term. That advice has not changed, and nor has our policy.

I asked my officials to immediately establish the impact of these discharges, and in October 2013, UK scientists concluded that based on the available data, there were elevated levels of nutrients in the lagoon which could be damaging to coral.

Over the period since October, my officials have been working to agree a plan with the US to come into compliance with our no discharge policy, and I am pleased to say I have now agreed this. The plan will involve expenditure of several million dollars by the US over a period of three years to retrofit all of the vessels in the lagoon. The programme of work balances the requirement to maintain operational readiness in the region, meet international security commitments, and deal with the logistical and fiscal challenges such a large-scale programme brings with it. A comprehensive joint UK-US study is now also under way to assess and monitor the coral and marine health of the lagoon and ensure that the programme has the desired effect of reducing the levels of nutrients in the lagoon and protecting the coral.

Foreign Affairs Council

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I attended the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council called to discuss Ukraine on 3 March in Brussels, chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Commissioners Füle (enlargement) was also in attendance.

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa. eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/141294.pdf

Ukraine

Ministers condemned Russia’s acts of aggression in Ukraine, stating that Russian actions were unacceptable. I underlined the need for concrete actions, to ensure EU credibility and deter further aggression, as well as indicating potential further actions if Russia did not de-escalate.

The Council agreed conclusions condemning Russia’s acts of aggression against Ukraine and stating that, in the absence of quick Russian de-escalation, there would be consequences for EU-Russia relations. Ministers reaffirmed their support for Ukraine, and agreed to work swiftly on the adoption of restrictive measures for the freezing and recovery of assets of persons identified as responsible for the misappropriation of state funds, and the freezing of assets of persons responsible for human rights violations.

An emergency European Council will discuss the situation in Ukraine on Thursday 6 March.

Invalid Travel Documents (New Powers)

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Schedule 7 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill provides for new powers to search for and seize invalid travel documents, including cancelled passports, for police officers, immigration officers and designated customs officials. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent shortly. The schedule 7 provisions will commence the day after Royal Assent.

These new powers will help to define clearly the statutory powers available at ports to prevent people from travelling to or from the United Kingdom on invalid documentation and provide an express statutory power to enforce the cancellation of a passport by a Secretary of State. Operation of these new powers will be restricted for the first two months to cases where the passport has been cancelled by the Secretary of State.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

On Saturday 8 March, to coincide with international women’s day, the Government are publishing an updated violence against women and girls action plan. A copy will be placed in the House Library.

Last year around 1.2 million women suffered domestic abuse and around 330,000 were sexually assaulted. This is wholly unacceptable. We are determined, not just to reduce, but to end violence against women and girls.

In November 2010, we set out our strategy to end violence against women and girls. Our key themes of prevention, provision of good-quality services, improved partnership working, better justice outcomes and risk reduction remain as relevant today as when we first agreed our approach.

This third revision of the action plan updates the efforts underpinning that strategy, and sets out significant progress since the last report was published a year ago. We are also aware of emerging issues and new challenges and the updated plan includes a renewed focus on early intervention, supporting effective local approaches, driving a culture change and measuring outcomes.



We are proud of the progress this Government have made in protecting the lives of women and girls, but there is still much more to do. This action plan confirms our ongoing commitment to stop the violence and abuse which blights the lives of too many women and girls.

Violence against Women and Girls Overseas

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

I am pleased to take this opportunity to update the House for a second time on my role as ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas. Since my previous written ministerial statement, I have continued to lead the UK’s work on ending the global pandemic of violence against women and girls.

I am proud to say that the UK Government continue to show considerable leadership on this important issue. On 13 November, the UK co-hosted, with Sweden, the call to action on protecting girls and women in emergencies. This brought together Governments, UN Heads, international NGOs and civil society organisations to agree a new approach to protecting girls and women in emergency situations. The US has now taken on leadership of this initiative and we are working with them to ensure commitments translate to better support on the ground for girls and women.

In December, I hosted a learning event on preventing violence against women and girls for DFID staff and external partners. The seminar brought together members from the gender and development network, DFID staff and cross-Government colleagues to mark international human rights day, which concluded the 16 days of activism against gender violence. The overall objective for the event was to inform and inspire attendees to take action to prevent violence against women and girls.

At the event, I announced that the South African Medical Research Council will lead the main component of our flagship violence against women and girls research and innovation fund. This £25 million fund will pilot new approaches and strengthen the evidence base on what works, with a particular focus on prevention.

I have continued to champion the UK’s efforts to end female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). On international day of zero tolerance to FGM on 6 February, I joined with Ministers from across-Government to sign up to a declaration to end FGM/C in the UK and around the world. On 14 January I met with the Department of Education, the Home Office and representatives from national teachers’ associations and unions to discuss raising awareness of FGM/C.

I have also taken the opportunity to support DFID’s work in developing countries. I recently visited Burkina Faso to see work being funded through DFID’s flagship £35 million FGM/C programme. During my visit I met communities who have abandoned the practice to learn how this change came about and visited a school to hear students’ views about the practice and how young people can help with its eradication. I also met the First Lady, Chantal Compaoré, to find out how the UK can support African leadership on this issue.

Looking forward, 2014 is a critical year for pushing the elimination of violence against women and girls up the international development agenda. My priorities for 2014, which I circulated in my recent Valentine’s day letter to Members of Parliament, build on those I previously highlighted to the House. They are:

Securing and defending the rights of girls and women to live free from violence, through international negotiations such as the Commission on the Status of Women in March and the ongoing negotiations on the framework which will take us beyond the millennium development goals.

Eliminating FGM/C within a generation. The UK Government are working to end this harmful practice in 17 countries through our flagship programme. This programme works at community-level to support changes in social norms, and supports enabling policies and legislation. It also includes a campaign to galvanise a movement to end the practice at local, national and international level. This will complement work already going on in the UK to eliminate the practice here.

Sharing knowledge of what works to prevent violence against girls and women, by investing in research and working with others to ensure that what we do is based on strong evidence.

Forging strategic partnerships in the international system to “lock in” prevention of violence against girls and women, making sure we get the best outcomes for girls and women by working closely with others over the long term.

Linking our international work with the domestic, particularly our work on FGM/C and early and forced marriage and through the UK’s national action plan on violence against women and girls.

In March 2014 I will be representing the UK, alongside the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for Women and Equalities, at the 58th Commission on the Status of Women in New York. I will attend both the event itself and a number of side-events focused on violence against women and girls. This global gathering will serve as an important step in our efforts to secure a strong post-2015 development framework that includes a stand-alone goal on gender equality and empowerment of women and girls and a target on preventing and eliminating all forms of violence against women and girls, and mainstreams gender throughout all the goals.

We are working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence colleagues to develop a new, more ambitious, national action plan on women, peace and security to launch in June at the “End Sexual Violence in Conflict: London 2014” summit. The aim of the new national action plan will be to ensure a more joined-up approach to our work on women, peace and security that makes best use of UK Government resources. It will set out how we will take forward the women, peace and security agenda, of which violence against women and girls will be a key component, internationally, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1325.

I look forward to updating the House again on my work to achieve my priorities in the coming months.

Mesothelioma Claims

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend, the Minister for Justice, Lord Faulks, has made the following statement:

On 4 December 2013, Official Report, column 55WS, my hon. Friend, the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) who is responsible for courts and legal aid issued a written ministerial statement announcing the Government’s decisions following its “Reforming mesothelioma claims” consultation. I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s full response to that consultation which contains the report under section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012.

The Government are keen to continue working constructively with stakeholders to identify reforms which might potentially improve the compensation claims process for mesothelioma.

Copies of the response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is also available online at: http://www.justice.gov.uk.

State Opening of Parliament

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

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

Her Majesty the Queen will open a new Session of this Parliament on Tuesday 3 June 2014.

National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland (Lord Carlile's Report)

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

This is a summary of the main findings from the report by Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland, over the period from 1 December 2012 to 31 December 2013.

“Once again I am grateful to Ministers for their close interest in the matters discussed here; several meetings with Ministers have occurred.

I have met several stakeholders for the purposes of this report. They have included the Secretary of State and other Ministers for the time being including the Minister of Justice in the Northern Ireland Executive, Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and MI5 at senior levels, the relevant Commissioners dealing with National Security matters, the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (PONI), and others. I have also engaged with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) concerning activities relevant to this Report. I have made myself available to the Northern Ireland political parties if so required, an offer which was not taken up this year.

The liaison between Mr Ford and those responsible for national security issues is satisfactory.

The context in which national security activities are performed in Northern Ireland is changing and remains challenging. I have considered the current threat level, and what I have learned of events of a terrorist nature during the year. The level of terrorist activity appears broadly similar to the previous year. The overall picture is of a very dangerous, unpredictable terrorist threat, though one much smaller than in the days of PIRA terrorist activity.

There were 30 national security incidents during 2013, and several hoaxes. The authorities deserve the highest praise for the successful security operations surrounding the G8 Summit at Lough Erne on 17-18 June and the World Police and Fire Games on 1-10 August, both of which always had the potential to be a magnet for terrorism.

Ongoing investigations are at a high level. I was provided with information about such investigations, and of the considerable number of officers involved. Peace is in no small way the result of these efforts by PSNI and MI5 personnel.

Additional challenges continue to be posed by the many connections which terrorists appear to have with organised crime—not least because such crime helps fund their politically motivated activities. The opposition to drugs use by dissident republican groups is less than convincing. Their continued involvement in tobacco smuggling is clear.

As before, I asked specifically about loyalist terrorists. Basically these are people whose real interest is in making money from crime. Their groups have always suffered from fractiousness, and this has not changed. The authorities are well sighted against these organisations.

I have asked questions again this year about the relationship between MI5 and PSNI staff working alongside each other in security sensitive operations in Northern Ireland. That they work together well and in the national interest is beyond question. Generally they are well sighted together over potential terrorist operations, better than other similar arrangements I have observed elsewhere in the world. There is no evidence of the two services in any way undermining each other’s work—quite the opposite.

In concurrence with MI5 and national security work, the use of CHIS has been effective. I was very impressed by what I was told of the training and verification processes: they are methodical, detailed and subject to constant checking.

The PSNI and MI5 respectively have their own in-house legal advisers. The PSNI also has an in-house Human Rights legal adviser. In addition, relations with the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland are excellent and founded on trust and mutual respect, and as a result the services can go to the Public Prosecution Service for advice if they feel that it would be helpful.

I am satisfied that there is undoubtedly solid scrutiny of interception, in an environment in which communications technology is developing quickly.

I have asked about the availability and use of technology for counter-terrorism operations. The amount of technically based work is on the increase, and the public are protected by investment in top quality and up to date technology.

I met the Policing Board during 2013, and attempted to address their understandable concern that they cannot make full judgments of relevant issues involving policing and national security on the basis of incomplete information. The nature of national security and the Northern Ireland context necessitates these arrangements, but the Board can feel reassured that the Human Rights Advisor is able to carry out that role with greater confidence. A stronger and coherent narrative is provided, and continuing capable judgment exercised as to what can and cannot be shared with the Board.

I consider that continuing discussion between the operational authorities and the PONI will help to define further the legitimate scope of any enquiries he may have in mind into national security issues and policy.

In relation to prosecutions, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is pursuing a policy consistent with that in GB, of prosecuting where the evidence reaches the required standards applicable to prosecution decisions generally. The threat of terrorism justifies the continuation of the non-jury system. There is no evidence of any disadvantage in terms of outcome to Defendants in the current system of non-jury trials.

Prisons remain a problem area on two grounds. First, short-term prisoners can emerge from gaol as more determined and better informed terrorists. Secondly, prison officers are a relatively easy target for terrorist attack.

I have measured performance in 2013 against the five key principles identified in relation to national security in Annex E to the St Andrews Agreement of October 2006.

My conclusions in relation to Annex E are as follows:

Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe (Appointment)

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). Lord Bowness will continue as a full member and also assume the role of leader to the delegation.

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Appointment)

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). Lord Balfe has also been appointed as a substitute member in place of Baroness Buscombe.

Light Dues 2014-15

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

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

The three general lighthouse authorities (GLAs) for the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland provide an essential service for mariners through the deployment of coastal aids to navigation and inspection of harbour lights. The celebration of the 500th anniversary of Trinity House this year is helping to highlight the continuing vital role of these historic organisations. However this year and next will witness two significant changes affecting the GLAs.

In line with provisions in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, the GLAs’ pension schemes will be closed and their members transferred to the principal civil service pension scheme, the rules of which the current schemes already follow by analogy. The reserves in the general lighthouse fund—above a minimum level required to maintain operational cash flow—will be used to fund this transfer, supplemented by a loan from the Department for Transport, which will be repaid through the fund over the next 10 years.

The transfer, which addresses the pension liabilities of the GLAs, will be of significant benefit to light dues payers. First it removes a source of volatility and risk for the general lighthouse fund from uncertainties arising in the way pension liabilities are valued. Secondly, it is a fundamental component of our actions to implement the agreement made in 2010 by the Irish and UK Governments that, from 2015-16, the work of the Commissioners of Irish Lights in the Republic of Ireland will be met fully from Irish sources.

In this way, the Government are laying the ground for a sustainable reduction in the call on the UK light dues payer, delivering on their commitment to creating the right conditions to support one of the UK’s most important industries.

On top of this, the GLAs have continued to improve the efficiency of their operations by working together, harnessing new technology, and a concerted programme of converting aids to navigation to use solar power. Therefore, I have decided to reduce the light dues rate by one penny to 40p per net registered tonne in 2014-15 and I intend to seek a further reduction in 2015-16, dependent on the final valuation of the liability and a decision on the appropriate minimum level of the general lighthouse fund. Following the freeze in light dues since 2010, this represents a 14% reduction in real terms under this Government.

Independent Living Fund

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

On 18 December 2012, the Government announced that the independent living fund (ILF) would close on 31 March 2015 with funding transferred to local authorities in England and to the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. This announcement followed an extensive consultation exercise on the future of the ILF.

The legality of this decision was challenged in the High Court through judicial review proceedings brought by five ILF users. At the High Court hearing, in March 2013, the Court found that the consultation had been carried out in a fair and proper manner and that “due regard” was paid to the public sector equality duty (PSED).

The High Court decision was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal and following an appeal hearing in October 2013 the Court delivered its judgment on 6 November 2013. The Court of Appeal did not make any findings on the merits of the decision to close the ILF and upheld the Department’s position on the consultation, finding that it had been carried out properly and fairly. However, the Court allowed the appeal on the PSED points, holding that more documentary evidence was required to demonstrate that Ministers were aware of the full extent of the potential impact of closure on ILF users, and to demonstrate that they had given due regard to all three parts of the public sector equality duty.

Following the Court’s decision, the Department took action to ensure that all activities being undertaken by the ILF to prepare for closure were stopped with immediate effect.

Since the judgment was given, I have taken time to reflect on the Court of Appeal’s decision. A new equality analysis has been undertaken and further advice provided to enable me to make a new decision on the future of the ILF.

I have considered the implications of closing the fund very carefully before reaching my decision on the way forward. This has included in-depth consideration of all of the various aspects of the PSED and the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

It is clear to me, from considering all of the evidence, that there is considerable concern among ILF users, about the potential impact of closing the fund on their independence and on their ability to exercise choice and control over how their care and support is managed. I also recognise that many users believe that closing the ILF will affect their ability to continue to live independently in their own homes, to pursue educational and employment opportunities, and to participate in social activities.

However, I do not believe that continuing a separate system of support, operating through a discretionary trust and outside the statutory mainstream adult social care system, is the right approach. The key features that have contributed to the ILF’s success, in particular, the choice and control it has given disabled people over how their care and support is managed, are now provided, or are very soon to be provided, within the mainstream system. To continue with the present arrangements, which benefit a relatively small proportion of disabled people, would therefore fail to take account of the significant developments in adult social care and the changes which have been made in the past 20 years, in the way disabled people are supported to live independent lives.

I remain committed to maintaining awards to current users until the ILF closes. However, I do not think that the current tier 2 arrangements are justified and it is my intention to close the ILF on 30 June 2015. Following closure, local authorities in England will take direct responsibility for meeting the eligible care and support needs of current ILF users in line with their statutory responsibilities. The devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will determine how ILF users in each of those parts of the UK, are supported within their distinct care and support systems. As previously announced, at the point of transfer local authorities and the devolved Administrations will be funded to enable them to meet their new responsibilities towards former ILF users.

Before receiving the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the ILF had been making excellent progress to deliver its transfer review programme—an ambitious and complex programme to enable both local authorities and ILF users to prepare for the transfer to the new arrangements. The suspension of closure activity, to allow time for the future of the ILF to be fully considered, means that asking the ILF to complete the transfer programme within the original time scales would involve an unacceptable degree of risk. For that reason, I will be asking the ILF to resume closure activity immediately, to deliver a re-planned programme that will achieve closure by 30 June 2015. This will allow additional time to ensure that adequate transfer arrangements have been made in respect of all ILF users.

The equality analysis “Closure of the Independent Living Fund”, undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions, will be published on my Department’s website. I will place a copy of the equality analysis in the House Library. The equality analysis records all analysis carried out by the Department to enable a full and thorough consideration of the extent of the potential impact of closure on independent living fund users, and demonstrates full consideration of the requirements of the public sector equality duty (PSED) as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Work Capability Assessment

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I am pleased to announce that Dr Paul Litchfield, who recently published the fourth independent review of the work capability assessment (WCA), will be continuing in his role as independent reviewer for the fifth and final statutory review of the work capability assessment as required by the Welfare Reform Act 2007.

This year’s review will continue the process of ensuring the assessment is as fair and accurate as possible in helping people back to work if they are able, while ensuring that financial support is provided to those who need it.

Dr Paul Litchfield is chief medical officer and director of health, safety and well-being for BT, a post he has held since 2001. An experienced senior occupational physician, his fields of expertise include mental illness and the impact it can have on work prospects. As a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council, he has also played a key role in raising the profile of the economic impact of chronic disease.

As in previous years, an independent scrutiny group, chaired by Professor David Haslam—chair of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), past president of the Royal College of General Practitioners and former national professional adviser to the Care Quality Commission—will oversee the review process.

Dr Litchfield will present his report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions before the end of 2014.

Mesothelioma Act 2014 (Scheme Payments)

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I am today announcing that the payments made under the Mesothelioma Act 2014 scheme will be increased ahead of the first payments being made later this year. Eligible individuals can now expect to receive an average payment of £123,000, less benefit recovery, an average of £8,000 more per person. As always, each successful applicant will also receive a further £7,000 on top of this as a contribution towards legal fees.

I am happy to announce that this is possible because of savings made on the administration costs of the scheme. Over the course of the debates on the Mesothelioma Bill, much attention was given to the commercial process to select the scheme administrator, and who that scheme administrator would be. I can now announce that the open tender process has been concluded, and the contract has been awarded to Gallagher Basset International.

As the Bill progressed through Parliament, my noble friend Lord Freud, Minister for Welfare Reform, and I were sympathetic with those Members who called for an increase in payments from 75% to 80% of average civil damages, but were bound by the need to keep the levy below the 3% of GWP threshold. The savings made through running a competitive open tender process have enabled us to raise the payment rate, while keeping below this threshold.

I hope that Members of both Houses will welcome this increase and will continue to give the scheme their support.

Work Programme

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

Having now helped 444,000 people into jobs and 208,000 into lasting work, the Work programme is succeeding—transforming the lives of those furthest from the labour market, who are the hardest to help into employment. The performance of providers since the Work programme’s first year of operation has significantly improved. As planned, these providers are being paid for getting people into work and keeping them there; a real change in the whole culture of how welfare-to-work schemes operate. Now, the positive signs are clear to see: there are fewer people on jobseeker’s allowance than when the Work programme started, and this quarter marked a sizeable fall of 45,000 in long-term unemployment.

Our aim from the start was always that the Work programme should allow for continuous improvement. By its very design, the Work programme was intended to create a competitive market. Providers are paid by results—transferring financial risk to providers and protecting the taxpayer, unlike previous schemes where vast amounts were paid out up front regardless of success. What is more, for the first time unlike other programmes, through levers such as market share shift and contract termination, we are able to actively manage this market place. Since August last year, the Department for Work and Pensions has been rewarding success by referring more claimants to the better performing providers. At the same time, the structure of the Work programme is intended to push out poorer performing providers.

It is now the right time to focus on those contracts which are not doing as well as their competitors. While all contracts are on track to hit their contractual JSA targets, there is significant variation in performance. Accepting only the best for claimants, I have reviewed the performance of the bottom 25% of contracts against a range of performance measures. As a result, the providers delivering these contracts have been put under an enhanced performance management regime, driving them to up their game further.

Following this review, I have also decided to terminate one contract—the lowest performing when assessed against this range of measures. Today I have issued a notice of termination to Newcastle College Group in respect of their contract for the provision of Work programme services in north-east Yorkshire and the Humber. The notice of termination has been issued under the voluntary break clause in the contract and not for any breach of contract by Newcastle College Group.

Following the contract termination, no individual on the Work programme will be left without support. Not only do other providers operate as competitors in the area already, but Newcastle College Group are required to operate within the terms of their contract while the Department appoints a replacement provider within the next 12 months. To ensure continuity of service for those currently on the Work programme in the region, before making that appointment, we will rigorously assess bids to determine who can best deliver the quality of service and results we require. The Department will also support the provider’s supply chain during the transition of services to the replacement provider.

What we have initiated here is a continuous process of evaluation and improvement, with rewards for success and consequences for failure. To this end, other providers who deliver low levels of performance and fail to improve will be considered for further action including the termination of their contract. For the first time, a Government employment programme is harnessing the disciplines of the market place so that only those providers who succeed are retained to help claimants into work. In doing so, we can deliver on our goal to ensure claimants get the best possible service and achieve the best possible outcomes from the Work programme.

House of Lords

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 6 March 2014.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Women: Inequality in Political and Public Life

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Baroness Gale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to eliminate the inequality of women in political and public life.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, to ensure the better representation of women in public and political life, the Government have enabled parties to use positive action should they wish to increase participation by under-represented groups, have extended to 2030 the ability of parties to use women-only shortlists, and have set an aspiration that 50% of new public appointments should be women by the end of this Parliament. Given that Saturday is International Women’s Day, I wish everybody a happy International Women’s Day.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that progress is dreadfully slow, with only 252 women Peers ever appointed to your Lordships’ House, only 369 women ever elected to the House of Commons, only four women in the British Cabinet and only one woman ever appointed to sit in the Supreme Court, and that with the UK ranking at 64 in the global ranking of women’s representation, more needs to be done? In whatever walk of life, whether it be political or public life, women do not sit at the top tables of decision-making. Does she further agree that the time has now come for some drastic action and that what we should be moving to now is legislation for a quota system? Many other countries do it. Will she look at what other countries are doing and examine how successful quotas have been?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is quite right—progress is far too slow and much more needs to be done. Things are slowly speeding up. I am well aware of the work that she herself did in Wales to transform things in her party. I know also of the transformative effects that quotas have had in some of the Scandinavian countries so that they now no longer need to use quotas. It is very difficult under a non-proportional system to do that within the United Kingdom Parliament, but right across the board, whether it is women on boards, women in public life or women in Parliament, we are examining this extremely carefully. We absolutely take her underlying argument about the need for progress.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, there are 30 million women in this country, yet we seem to have great difficulty in finding 325 women to bring parity among MPs in the other place. When the Speaker’s Conference was set up by the previous Government in 2008 there was extensive examination of the diversity of Parliament. What progress has been made and are the recommendations that came out of that very good inquiry being implemented?

[Baroness Northover]

As my noble friend will know, we have implemented the provisions of the Equality Act in terms of enabling political parties to use positive action and women-only shortlists. Those were recommendations that came out of the Speaker’s Conference. We have also secured a commitment from the three main parties to provide greater transparency over candidate selection and launched the access to elected office for disabled people strategy. But my noble friend is quite right, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that more needs to be done.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, given the concern about the status of early years provision, the fact that upward of 80% of the staff working in early years are women, and the increasing awareness of the vital importance of this area, are any Members of this House or the other place early years professionals? I am not aware of any and I think that is regrettable. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Northover]

There are a large number of early years experts in this House, I have to say. However, the noble Earl makes a good point about the need to be inclusive as regards those who stand for Parliament. It is extremely important that we do everything we can to encourage people to feel that it is worth while being involved in politics, worth while standing for Parliament and worth while serving more than one term. We need to look at why some Members of Parliament, especially women, decide after serving one term that they have had enough.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of two international development NGOs. Does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility to set a good example when two-thirds of those in poverty around the world are female and when the voices of women are simply not heard in the decision-making places around the world? What will the Government do to make sure that they lead in ensuring that the voices of those dispossessed women are heard internationally?

[Baroness Northover]

I hope that the noble Baroness recognises what DfID and the FCO have done in this regard. A number of parliamentarians from here will attend the Commission on the Status of Women next week in New York, which will seek to take forward the very points that she makes. She is absolutely right: unless you have women front and centre at all levels of their societies, you will not relieve poverty and you will not address inequality.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend may not be aware that the APPG for Women in Parliament, whose aim is to increase the representation of women here, is conducting an inquiry, which will start to take evidence next week, with support from Members of Parliament and Members of this House, to investigate barriers, challenges and what changes can be made to improve the situation. When the inquiry reports towards the end of the summer, will my noble friend confirm that she will encourage Ministers as well as the political parties to take note of the results?

[Baroness Northover]

I can assure my noble friend that we certainly will do that. I pay tribute to my noble friend for what she has done within her own party to encourage women to get involved in this area. I welcome the fact that the all-party group is doing that and I look forward to seeing its report.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

Does the Minister acknowledge that we should not get too gloomy given that the only Lord Speakers in this House have both been women and that, of the five most recent Leaders of the House, three have been women? Perhaps this appointed House has some advantages in terms of what we are able to do to ensure that women reach the places they should be in.

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I also note—I have analysed it myself—the disproportionate contribution made by women in the Lords in terms of work. I have pointed that out to the various party leaders, most effectively within my own party, and we are now up to 31% in our group in terms of women’s representation.

Afghanistan: Protection and Women’s Safety

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked by

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to recent events in Afghanistan, including changes to Afghan law, and their impact on the protection and safety of women.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, we have raised the issue with the Afghan Government at the highest level. We were pleased that President Karzai issued a decree amending the criminal procedure code. This has been returned to Parliament for approval and we, along with our international partners, will continue to closely monitor the situation. We regularly raise respect for women’s rights and the protection of women’s security with the Afghan Government and will continue to do so.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response. Does she agree that until we know how the Afghan Government will amend the Bill, it remains a threat to already fragile women’s rights and security in Afghanistan, so hard fought for by Afghan women and by our forces? Does she share my concern about the evidence that there has been a backlash against women’s rights and that the UN has reported that violent crimes against women increased by 28% in 2013 and prosecutions by only 2%? In view of the grim realities facing Afghan women, is it not regrettable that the situation in Afghanistan was described by our Prime Minister as “mission accomplished”?

[Baroness Warsi]

For the sake of noble Lords who do not understand what the noble Baroness and I are talking about, this is in relation to a particular piece of legislation that effectively meant that members of a family could not give evidence against other members of that family. The drafting of that legislation was unfortunately supported by the UN, specifically in relation to drugs crimes, where it was felt that family members would potentially support the accused in court by giving false evidence. Unfortunately, it was a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing, and the international community’s concern is that this legislation will be used against women who want to give evidence, for example in the case of domestic violence or abuse. The President has issued a decree to ensure that this does not happen. We are confident at this stage that the parliamentary majority required to overturn that decree does not exist and the timetable within which it has to be overturned is too short. We are therefore confident in hoping that the decree will stand.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen yesterday’s report by Carolyn Wyatt for the BBC, which said that half of all children under five in Afghanistan are suffering from the effects of malnutrition? Given the reported comments by Médecins sans Frontières during that broadcast, saying that the principal reason for this is the confinement of women to their homes, leaving them without access to clinics, knowledge or available food or medicine, can we look at the MSF initiative of reaching out directly to mothers and targeting support to them?

[Baroness Warsi]

The situation in Afghanistan still has some way to go, as the noble Lord says. I was aware of that report but perhaps we may focus slightly on the positive. The noble Lord may be aware, certainly if you go back to 2001 and consider the number of women who are now receiving postnatal and prenatal care, that around 50% of women now have access to those maternity services—some three times more than about a decade ago.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, is not the best way of dealing with some of these difficult legal situations emerging in Afghanistan to get more women into legislative roles? Is my noble friend aware that there is some concern about an emerging threat to the established women’s quotas in Afghanistan, particularly at provincial level? Before the international community departs, will she do everything in her power to enshrine and secure a legislative role for women in Afghanistan at all levels and across all districts?

[Baroness Warsi]

This matter is incredibly close to my heart. Indeed, my maiden speech in this House was on the plight of women in Afghanistan. There has, of course, been some progress there: 27% of all parliamentarians are now female; 25% of civil servants are female; and, indeed, one deputy presidential candidate, Habiba Sarabi—the ex-governor of Bamiyan—is standing on one of the presidential tickets. However, of course so much more needs to be done, and one of the messages that I and my colleagues—Justine Greening, for example—send out very clearly when we are in Afghanistan is that the fragile gains that have been made on women’s rights in that country must not be allowed to slide.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what pressure can HMG bring to bear on the Government of Afghanistan to let more girls go to school?

[Baroness Warsi]

Again, huge progress has been made here compared with only a decade ago. Of more than 6 million children in school in Afghanistan today, 2 million are girls, and many more are now attending higher education institutions. However, in a year when we are approaching the drawdown, at the end of 2014, it is important that the gains that have been made are not allowed to slip. That is why our DfID programme will continue at the level it is now.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, it is the women human rights defenders in Afghanistan who are at particular risk. Can the Minister assure us that their safety will not be forgotten when we are discussing security in Afghanistan?

[Baroness Warsi]

They are incredibly brave women, and I also pay tribute to the incredibly brave work that my noble friend does in relation to the protection of women’s rights in Afghanistan. As a Government, we support, for example, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. It has a phenomenal chairman, Sima Samar, who puts her life at risk in raising very challenging issues. I assure my noble friend that we will continue to do all we can to make sure that this issue does not fall off the agenda as we draw down our troops.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, will women’s rights and security for women be included as critical indicators of UK progress towards withdrawal and the UK’s post-2014 involvement in Afghanistan?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord will be aware of the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. Part of that covers human rights as well as the very specific issue of women’s rights. The law on the elimination of violence against women is specifically used as a measure of how Afghanistan is doing against the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. It is the way in which we measure progress on women’s rights, as well as progress on stopping violence against women. The noble Lord will be aware that, within three to six months following the presidential election, we will be jointly chairing the meeting that will assess Afghanistan’s progress against the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. That is the main framework that we will carry on using to make sure that progress continues in this area.

Female Genital Mutilation

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:21

Asked by

[Baroness Prosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that government departments work together to identify girls at risk of female genital mutilation and provide them with the necessary support.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, on 6 February, to mark International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation, Ministers signed a declaration to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to tackling this practice. On 8 March, we will be publishing the updated ending violence against women and girls action plan. This will have a renewed focus on FGM and will set out clearly the cross-government approach we are adopting.

[Baroness Prosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply and of course I welcome the recent intervention by the Secretary of State for Education, which will enable all schools to play their part in dealing with this terrible and dreadful crime. Can the noble Baroness elaborate a little for the House on the role of other government departments? For example, will the Department of Health, the UK Border Agency, local government in the form of social services and so on be included? Which department will take the lead? Will this co-ordinated approach be at ministerial level? Finally, how is this work going to be developed within relevant local communities?

[Baroness Jolly]

The noble Baroness asks a lot of questions. Although the ending violence against women and girls action plan is led by the Home Office—I was at a planning meeting a couple of weeks ago and the people sitting around the table were all very senior members from each department, as well as from this House—all government departments play a key role in tackling FGM. For example, as of next month it will be mandatory for NHS acute hospitals to provide monthly information on patients who have undergone FGM, and that has to be supplied to the Department of Health. The Government have also launched a £100,000 FGM community engagement initiative to support community work to raise awareness of FGM. We acknowledge that working with relevant communities is vital, as is systemic eradication of FGM in the UK, which will require practising communities to abandon the practice. There are some really good examples of work being done in Bristol. The West Midlands Police does really useful work and of course the Met here in London is seen as a leader on this issue.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, in January 2013, Ofsted announced that it would be making efforts to investigate FGM prevention in schools. Worryingly, 80% of teachers said that they had had no professional training in recognising signs of FGM. Will the Minister say what the Government are doing to encourage schools to provide training for teachers so that they can recognise girls at risk?

[Baroness Jolly]

Fahma Mohamed visited the Department of Health and met the Secretary of State. As a result of this visit, he will be writing to schools by Easter. The safeguarding guidance is being rewritten—it has not been rewritten since 2007—and will go direct to schools, signposting the most recent FGM advice.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell us what conversations have been had with the General Medical Council and the BMA? It is often considered that general practitioners’ view of patient confidentiality can get in the way of reporting. That might be an area that seriously needs to be considered.

[Baroness Jolly]

This is a crime and these people all have safeguarding responsibilities. The Government have been having conversations with the Royal College of General Practitioners, the BMA and, critical to all this, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I welcome the Secretary of State for Education’s commitment to provide the guidelines to schools on protecting children who are at risk of genital mutilation. Will the noble Baroness tell the House what further steps are being taken to provide for and to support properly trained counsellors who really understand the cultural background to this issue so that we are not only protecting children but supporting those who are at risk or may already have been abused?

[Baroness Jolly]

Work is going on with local communities. A £100,000 grant has been given to set up training so that people could work with NGOs and local schools to pick up exactly the type of issue that the right reverend Prelate has outlined.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that, given the growing disquiet in the country thanks to the efforts of Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place, even if the Government just said that they were going to look at the possibility of mandatory examination of young girls, that would send out a real warning signal? Parents thinking of doing this would know there is a real possibility that they could go to prison for it.

[Baroness Jolly]

The Government have looked at that and currently have decided that it is not the way in which they want to go forward. The NHS’s response is that it is asking all acute hospitals to report on a monthly basis to the Department of Health when they see evidence of FGM.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we all know that what we really need is a successful prosecution for FGM. On a different point, have the Government considered conducting a national confidential inquiry into patient outcomes on female genital mutilation? They could do a survey across the NHS, which might help to give a clearer picture. Is the noble Baroness prepared to talk to her friends in the department to see whether that is a possibility?

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I think that everyone agrees that a prosecution is long overdue. We are told that there are prosecutions in the pipeline. Certainly, I am more than happy to take the noble Baroness’s suggestion back to the Department of Health.

Uganda: Treatment of Women

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:29

Asked by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make representations to the government of Uganda about reports that women are being attacked following the passing of legislation in the Ugandan Parliament that bans women from wearing indecent outfits.

[Thee Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, we have been closely following the Anti-Pornography Act, which received assent on 6 February 2014. The clause interpreted as restricting female dress was amended during parliamentary debate. We are working with local and international partners to understand fully the Act’s implementation. The Ugandan police have issued a warning against attacks and the Ugandan Prime Minister announced a Cabinet review of the Act.

[Baroness Walmsley]

I thank my noble friend for her reply, but is she aware that public statements by Ugandan Ministers have suggested that the Government really support the sort of behaviour that has resulted from this ban? Is she aware that evidence in this country about men who coerce their wives and partners about what they wear shows that that often leads further to violence against those women? I welcome the British High Commission’s public statement opposing the anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda. Will the British High Commission do something similar in relation to this particular legislation?

[Baroness Warsi]

Again, for the sake of noble Lords who do not know what we are talking about, this is in relation to a particular piece of legislation that was designed to be anti-pornography, but the definition of pornography was drafted so widely that it effectively covered what women could and could not be perceived to wear in public, including a ban on miniskirts. In relation to the particular question, I assure my noble friend that we have made incredibly strong submissions, both publicly and privately, about the Anti-Pornography Act and the impact that it has had on women because of the unfortunate way that society has responded to what is perceived to be the law, as well as in relation to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which was passed in February of this year.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, following something that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about this country, does the Minister agree that while it is important that we make ourselves clear to Uganda about how we view its legislation, we should also be aware that in this country there is still a disposition to regard women’s behaviour and how they dress as a form of contributory negligence when they are subjected to violence? Will she reassure the House that the Government are doing everything they can to root that out, particularly in the police and media? Will she also look at how the education of boys can be further strengthened to ensure that boys do not grow up with those sorts of attitudes?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. She clearly shows that despite the fact we have legislation in countries that protects women, ultimately social attitudes must follow to ensure that the legislation can be properly implemented and the values that we espouse are properly seen in society. All of us have a responsibility. Only last week, when I was out campaigning with a particular female Member of Parliament, she was referred to by somebody on Twitter as a “Harpy”. I googled that and realised it was an offensive word, so I quite rightly blocked them.

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords, everyone is clearly aware that this is yet another piece of gender-based regressive legislation in Uganda, which clearly contravenes the accepted human rights norms on an international basis let alone what we may think. With many UK-based firms working and investing in Uganda, what discussions are the Government having about the implications for United Kingdom citizens located there and, perhaps just as importantly, for UK investment policy in Uganda?

[Baroness Warsi]

First of all, our travel advice on LGBT issues has been clear to inform people that there could be challenges in relation to how they could be treated when they are in Uganda. Of course, we have a strong relationship with Uganda. It is on that basis that we can have these incredibly frank conversations. I think that all noble Lords would accept that every country is on a journey in relation to its issues around LGBT rights. We have had our own such journeys in this country. What concerns me is the trajectory of some of these countries. Unfortunately, they seem to be heading in the wrong direction.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, are the Government contemplating any practical action as a result of the truly appalling anti-homosexual legislation? How about travel bans?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. One of the potential solutions has been to look at the issue of our aid programme. It is important to note that we do not give budget support to the Ugandan Government: 99% of our aid goes directly to NGOs and civil society organisations. But we must always remain vigilant and look at how we can continue to persuade the Ugandan Government and others to protect LGBT rights.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not clear about the Minister’s answer to the penultimate question about the agenda of our dialogue with the Ugandan Government on investment and many other questions. What is the Government’s judgment of how far this matter can be taken forward, or is it the sort of area which it is thought better to exclude for diplomatic reasons?

[Baroness Warsi]

It is not thought of as an area that we would exclude diplomatically. The noble Lord must be aware that the Foreign Secretary has made incredibly frank and open statements about our concerns around LGBT rights in Uganda and I have always taken the view, as the Minister with responsibility for human rights at the FCO, that if we are going to make human rights work, we have to do this properly. That is the vein in which we are working.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, given that Uganda is treated as a safe country under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, when was the country of origin information service report on Uganda last revised?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord will be aware that there is always huge controversy about information and about the accuracy of the country of concern reports which are used as the basis for asylum applications, for example. I know that in relation to these particular issues and LGBT rights, the country of concern information has been and is being updated.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness and, indeed, the Secretary of State on the very firm stand they have taken on LGBT rights and other human rights, particularly in Uganda. When the law was passed to make homosexuality illegal, I was struck that the Anglican Church of Uganda supported it. I know that our own church and the former archbishop, Desmond Tutu, have denounced that. I wonder what the Government are doing in terms of working with the church to mitigate what will be, I think, dreadful repression.

[Baroness Warsi]

Engagement with faith communities is always seen as an avenue for us in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am not aware of what specific work we are doing in relation to Uganda, but I can certainly write to the noble Baroness on that. This particular piece of legislation was really the lobbying work of one single Member of Parliament, Simon Lokodo—I think it is important to name him—who is referred to as the Minister for Ethics and Integrity. That just shows, as we approach International Women’s Day, how much damage one man can do.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Announcement of Recess Dates

11:37

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a short statement about business. My noble friend the Leader of the House has today made the usual Written Statement to announce that the Queen will be pleased to open a new Session of Parliament in state on Tuesday, 3 June. Parliament will be prorogued in the usual way on a date to be announced once the progress of our remaining business is certain. I expect that date to be before we are due to start our Whitsun Recess. In other words, the arrangements being announced today will not disturb the Whitsun Recess.

I have two further announcements to make. When, last October, I announced a set of provisional recess dates up to January 2014, I made clear that those dates were a long-range forecast and would be subject to the progress of business and, indeed, events. I am today adding a week to the Easter Recess. We will rise for Easter, as previously announced, at the end of Wednesday, 9 April and we will now return on 6 May, the day after the early Monday May bank holiday.

The other announcement is that my noble friends, the Liberal Democrats, have moved their annual party conference to the week of 6 October so that it does not clash with the referendum to be held in Scotland in September. The House of Commons has decided not to sit during the week of the party conference and I now propose that we, too, should avoid sitting in the week of the Liberal Democrat party conference. We will therefore return from the Summer Recess on Monday, 13 October.

Business of the House

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion on Standing Orders

11:38

Moved by

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 10 March to allow the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Privileges and Conduct Committee

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

11:39

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That the 13th Report from the Select Committee (Amendments to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code) (HL Paper 123) be agreed to.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

My Lords, the report proposes changes to the House’s Code of Conduct and the guide to the code, to the rules relating to Members’ staff and to the procedures of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards. This report is expected to be the first of two that the committee makes to the House on these issues. It is proposed that a further report will cover a code of conduct for Members’ staff, further guidance on personal honour, and imprisonment of Members. I expect the next report from the committee to be made before Easter.

The report makes 12 recommendations, but I will refer explicitly only to some of them. The proposed changes come from three bodies, two of which will be familiar to Members of your Lordships’ House. The two familiar bodies are the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, which keeps the code and the guide to the code under regular review, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. The third body may be less well known to the House so I will take a few words to describe it. The body in question is called GRECO; its full title is the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption. It was established in 1999 with the role of monitoring the compliance of member states of the Council of Europe with agreed anti-corruption standards. It makes recommendations which Council of Europe member states, and certain other countries, are obliged by international treaty to consider and to implement as appropriate.

Some of the recommendations from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct require only brief explanation. The committee recommends that the new description of the seven principles of public life agreed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life should be adopted by the House. The committee also believes that it would help Members if the guide to the code was explicit in stating that the expression of a clear willingness to breach the code, even if no actual breach then takes place, demonstrates a failure to act on one’s personal honour and is therefore a breach of the code. This is not a new principle. It was endorsed by the House in 2009 and has been spelt out in other reports from the committee. The proposal is to set it out concisely in the guide to the code. The committee agrees with the Committee on Standards in Public Life and GRECO that the threshold for registering gifts, benefits and hospitality which relate substantially to membership of the House should be reduced. The recommendation is to bring the threshold into line with the threshold in the Ministerial Code—in other words, a reduction from £500 to £140.

The House will be aware of significant concerns about lobbying of Members and lobbying by Members. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct shares this concern and therefore accepts the GRECO recommendation that Members of the House should have appropriate guidance for dealing with lobbyists. In formulating this guidance, which is in paragraph 8 of the report, the committee has taken pains to balance the legitimate part played by lobbying in the policy-making process with the need to reassure the public that lobbyists are not exerting improper influence over Parliament.

The committee also proposes changes to the rules governing Members’ staff. Given public concern about lobbying, there can be a reasonable perception that anyone employing a person working at the same time for a Member of the House might gain an advantage not available to others. The possession of a parliamentary photo-pass can provide opportunities for contact with Members in the two Houses, so we recommend that Members’ staff sponsored for a parliamentary photo-pass must register the name of any third party that also employs them.

Other recommendations in the report propose small but useful improvements which I hope will help to uphold the standards of conduct in the House. I beg to move.

11:44

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to refer to just one of the proposals, not on grounds of principle at all—of course, the principle I totally accept—but on grounds of practicality. We must remember that under the rules the threshold for the registration of gifts, benefits and hospitality is cumulative; in other words, more than one gift, benefit or hospitality connected with parliamentary affairs from the same person is registrable. Five hundred pounds is a perfectly reasonable sum; it has been in the past. To reduce it to £140 is a huge reduction, but the real point is that the register of interests is already a massive document. Do we really want to clutter it up even more? One hundred and forty pounds is probably not more than the benefit of lunch twice in one year. Do we really want to clutter it up with trivial things? I have no quarrel at all with the principle; I just question whether a reduction from £500 to £140 is sensible.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to suggest that in future, when amendments to the Code of Conduct and the guide are contemplated and put to the House, we should have the equivalent of a Keeling schedule because there are a lot of amendments proposed here to an already long code, and it would be greatly helpful if there were a document which in effect showed what the changes are on the face of the existing code.

The other thing is that I would have hoped that we might have had the opportunity—indeed, we may have but I am unaware of it—to consult on the proposed changes because they affect us intimately. I would have liked to have made some remarks to those who were preparing this document and I am not aware that that opportunity was available.

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, the reduction from £500 to £140 is of course a matter of judgment. Personally, I see £500 as a worryingly high amount for a gift in relation to parliamentary activity. I think £140 is just about right, quite honestly. On the matter of a schedule that would enable everything to be put into context, when we produce these reports, we show how the changes impact on the present Code of Conduct. As far as consultation is concerned, the first step in consultation must always be through the representatives that the various groups appoint or elect to these committees.

Motion agreed.

Women: Contribution to Economic Life

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:48

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

That this House takes note of the contribution of women to economic life in the United Kingdom and worldwide.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to open this debate marking International Women’s Day. I am delighted that so many noble Lords are speaking today, and that we have a maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Palumbo as well. These debates, which have become an annual event, always demonstrate the enormous range and depth of experience of Members of this House. They are always constructive and thought-provoking. I am very much looking forward to noble Lords’ contributions.

On Saturday 8 March we will mark the 103rd International Women’s Day, an opportunity to celebrate women’s social, economic and political achievements. But while we celebrate the contribution of women to our economy, society and culture, we remain well aware of the barriers to full equality both here in the United Kingdom and internationally.

In 1911, on the first International Women’s Day, women in the United Kingdom were still campaigning for the right to vote, to work and to hold public office. On that day, more than a million women and men attended rallies calling for equality.

Three years later saw the outbreak of the Great War—a centenary that we are about to mark. The First World War saw a social revolution that would have profound and lasting effects on women in the United Kingdom, but it built on earlier changes—people moving into towns and cities, the extension of education to girls and increasing prosperity. In the Great War many women found themselves for the first time in paid employment. Women began taking on the vital roles left vacant when men were conscripted into the military. They worked in munitions factories, agriculture and transport. This movement into the workplace by women saw a far more fundamental change. Women began to expect more from life and society. They began to question the status quo. They asked why they could not do the same jobs or have the same education as men.

However, gaining that greater equality has been a long, slow process and we are not there yet. Women’s lives have of course changed greatly since the first International Women’s Day and the Great War, but we need to focus on challenging the unfairness and prejudice that can still stop women making the most of their potential. Women and girls are still expected to do more in the home than men and boys. The pay gap remains. They are less likely to take leading roles in business and public life. Yet we have also seen major shifts in all areas of women’s lives over the 100 years since the Great War. Today women run FTSE 100 companies, bring home gold medals and go into space. We need to tackle the multiple barriers that can hold women back—for their own sakes, for that of their families, including their daughters, and for the economy. This debate focuses on women’s contributions to the economy, at home and abroad. It is only by full participation that their contribution will be truly measured. There are many reasons why women face a greater range of challenges to fulfilling that economic potential, even if the landscape is transformed from earlier times, and even across the generations living now.

Of course, we need to encourage our daughters as much as our sons from the start. I certainly recall my mother being determined that I and my sister had the same opportunities and ambitions as my brother. Today, girls in the UK are outperforming boys at school and university: last year 24.8% of GCSE exams sat by girls were graded A* or A, compared to 17.6% of those sat by boys. Many girls are highly ambitious and want to get ahead, with over half of them saying they want to be a leader in their profession one day. The assumption in 1914 was that a girl’s only real aspiration should be marriage and motherhood. Of course, there are still some deeply ingrained social and cultural assumptions about girls’ abilities and interests. We hope that both sexes—girls and boys—will value family life. We can bring about that greater equality that we wish to see through a fundamental rethink about how men and women live their lives so that both sexes have the opportunity to fulfil themselves through both work and family—should they wish that.

We know that girls’ sense of their own self-worth and potential can cause them to limit their aspirations. In the United Kingdom, over 80% of girls feel that they are judged more on how they look than on what they can do. Sometimes their sense of what is appropriate for girls closes their eyes to other opportunities. At A-level, the subjects that can lead to some of the highest-paying careers, particularly maths and science, remain dominated by boys. In 2013, almost eight in 10 physics papers were taken by boys. Only 30% of women with STEM qualifications now work in science, engineering or technology occupations, compared to 50% of men with STEM qualifications. We need to help make the next generation of girls consider science, technology, engineering, maths or business as their potential route to achievement. Whatever route they wish to take, we wish to encourage girls to fulfil their potential.

We know that women still carry the greater responsibility for home and for children, which is why the home/life balance also has to be addressed. We are making changes that are designed to shift the ground further in favour of equality in the workplace. Flexible parental leave will allow families to share their caring responsibilities and help to end the automatic assumption that the woman will be the one to remain at home. Extending the right to request flexible working to all will help to challenge the presumption that flexible working is the preserve of women and that those who make a request are less committed to their employer.

As was flagged up yesterday in the question from my noble friend Lady Jenkin, we are acutely aware that once women have children, their ability to work may be severely hampered. That is why we are also helping with the costs of childcare by increasing free early education places for three and four year-olds to 15 hours a week and have extended that to disadvantaged two year-olds. As I mentioned yesterday, we are taking a range of other measures as well.

We are also aware that women’s caring responsibilities range wider than their children to older family members and others in need. This was an area we sought to address in the Care Bill, and through a number of other measures.

We are seeing girls outperform boys at school, although not always in subjects that will lead to the brightest of careers, and we are seeking to assist men and women to stay in work when they have families. What happens when women are in work? Two in three girls think that there are not enough women in leadership positions in the UK, and for many of them this lack of role models affects their sense of their own ability to succeed.

We are seeking to encourage women to aim high in the corporate world. Our Think, Act, Report initiative provides a simple framework to help companies think about gender equality in their workforces on key issues such as recruitment, retention, promotion and pay. There are now more than 170 major companies supporting the initiative, representing more than 2 million people.

At the top, we need change, hence the importance of the work being led by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to increase the number of women on boards. We now have more than 20% of FTSE 100 board posts being held by women, up from 12.5% two years ago, with only two companies, Antofagasta plc and Glencore Xstrata plc, still without a woman in post. Bear those names in mind, because I will probably mention them again on Monday when I am answering a Question from my noble friend Lady Seccombe about women on boards—unless, of course, there has been a change over the weekend.

However, we need women at every level, and we need women entrepreneurs. More than 14 million women are now working—more than ever before. Businesses set up and run by women contribute £70 billion to our economy. We have also acted to encourage and support more women to start their own businesses. The Women’s Business Council has made recommendations to improve the health and competitiveness of our economy, focusing on four key areas it has identified where girls and women face particular challenges or difficulties.

We know that more needs to be done so that at every level of every business we see women as well as men, and women in large numbers. It is not just in business where we need to see women. We need to see them running media organisations, as professors in universities, and in public life everywhere.

In terms of public life, the 2010 general election had a record number of women candidates and there are now more female Members of the House of Commons than at any other time: 147 women, including six Asian women MPs where previously there were none. But that is not enough and it is nowhere near 50%. We now have 182 women who are Members of this House. As I said earlier, they are disproportionately active in our House. It is worth bearing that in mind for those making any appointments.

In 2012-13, 37% of new public appointments made by Whitehall departments were women, and our aspiration is that 50% of new public appointees should be women by the end of this Parliament. However, we know there is much more to do to ensure that our institutions are fully reflective of the communities that they serve, so that women and girls fulfil their potential for their own benefit and for that of their families, but also for our economy.

We know how our lives have been transformed by comparison with those of our mothers, our grandmothers and our great-grandmothers. We are also very active, as noble Lords will know, in seeking to address the position of women worldwide, which we do through the FCO, through DfID and through other engagement. Right now we therefore have parliamentarians, Ministers, NGOs and officials beginning to gather in New York for the Commission on the Status of Women. Some noble Lords who are speaking here today will soon be making their way to New York, and we wish them well. It is important work that they will be doing. They will be seeking to ensure that the millennium development goals, which will be replaced in 2015, include a stand-alone goal on gender equality, as well as to ensure that gender is mainstreamed through all the goals, because we will quite simply not address the excluded—the poorest—without doing this.

Just as we work to ensure that women in the UK are fulfilled in their lives, and contribute to our economy alongside that, we recognise that gender equality elsewhere is vital not only for the women themselves but for their families, their societies and their economies. This is why DfID puts women and girls front and centre in its work. That is because, in the words of the proposed MDGs, we aim to leave no one behind.

DfID’s strategic vision for girls and women aims to unlock their potential to stop poverty before it starts. It seeks to empower girls and women by crystallising our aims under the headings of voice, choice and control. This means girls and women having a voice in decision-making in their household, community and country and in politics, business, the media and civil society through their participation, leadership and collective action. It means that they should have the choice to complete education and benefit from paid work and opportunities to earn a sufficient income and over whether, when and with whom they have sex, marry or have children. It means having control over their own bodies and mobility, including their safety from violence, and over income, productive assets and other resources, including food, water and energy, with equal legal rights, access to justice and freedom from discriminatory social norms. This also encapsulates what we seek in the United Kingdom.

What does this mean in practice in terms of DfID’s work? I would like to illustrate this from a visit that I have just made to India. Let me take the example of a couple of villages in Madhya Pradesh, which I visited with DfID officials. Sanitation has just been installed in these villages. In the case of one of them, the main defecation field was around a school. That was where people used to come but the schoolchildren were enlisted and showed huge enthusiasm for their task: to monitor their elders and betters, blowing whistles to summon help whenever an adult followed their usual patterns and began to use the field once again as a toilet. It took some months to retrain the adults but the children were delighted with the success that they had achieved. The women also noted that they were now safer in not having to go out into the field at night, while their children were more healthy and therefore in school. Sanitation had brought a wealth of benefits, including to the economy of that village.

In the second village there was a nutrition centre providing ante-natal care along with food for pregnant and lactating mothers and children up to the age of three. Those assisting the pregnant women and cooking the meals were women: paid directly, grouping together in self-help groups, opening small bank accounts, saving up and then being able to access loans. The ones who we met had used their loan to buy a buffalo for each woman to benefit her, her family, and the village’s economy. Within a year, those loans had been paid off and they were considering their next plan. I tell the House this to illustrate how such interventions can provide both independence and greater equality for women, and improve their ability to contribute to supporting their families—by feeding them and keeping children in school—their communities and their countries.

I conclude by looking forward to our debate today. Whether we debate the United Kingdom or the wider world, we know that we have not yet secured equality and that while we celebrate what we have achieved, we note the barriers that remain to the full participation of women at every level of society and in every aspect of our economies. I expect that this debate will shine further light on how far we have to go but also on what we have achieved. I beg to move.

12:04

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome that comprehensive speech from the Minister. It is a great pleasure to participate in today’s important debate, but I have to say that it is a good job that we got it in before the various recesses. I do not wish to begin on a sour note but I have to reflect that there will be little parliamentary business between now and the general election, perhaps maximising the time for political mischief-making and minimising the time for us to do our job. As a parliamentarian I regret that, but perhaps it is a consequence of the coalition being unable to agree upon a common programme. However, I shall return to today’s business.

It is clear from all the facts and figures that we will hear today that women’s participation and influence matters. Women, especially those from poor backgrounds in the developed and developing worlds, are marginalised within decision-making processes and institutions. As VSO points out in its excellent document Women in Power: Beyond Access to Influence in a Post-2015 World, there is clear evidence that where women participate and influence decision-making, it is leading to more efficient, effective and responsive decisions for women; it helps progress towards gender equality; and it helps to transform the deep-rooted social norms and attitudes that act as barriers.

There is a desperate need for action in a world where women account for two-thirds of the world’s poorest, perform two-thirds of the world’s work, produce 50% of the food but earn only 10% of the income and own only 1% of the property. These women are making a huge contribution to our economic life, and without them their families, communities and societies would crumble. That is one of the many reasons why it is crucial that the post-2015 development framework must include the issue of women’s participation and influence in public and political life.

I am delighted that gender is being mainstreamed and that the overarching message of the new framework is, “No woman left behind”, which encompasses women and girls from all over the world. Too often we separate the problems of women in the developing world from those in our world, whereas in reality our problems are often common and the difference is sometimes only in degree. Women in this country and throughout the European Union suffer economic inequality; likewise in Africa, India, Asia and America. Women are subjected to domestic violence all over the world. We are always horrified when we read of domestic violence on other continents, yet too many often forget that domestic violence is a reality in our own country, with one in four women subjected to domestic violence during their life. Yesterday we read of the terrible report that about one-third of all women in the EU have experienced either physical or sexual violence since the age of 15.

When it comes to women’s representation, it might seem shocking that only one in five parliamentarians worldwide is a woman or that women hold only 17% of ministerial posts, yet these figures almost mirror the reality in our own country, a mature democracy where women have had the vote since 1918. We know that where women are in positions of influence and power they make a difference, so we have to do much more to address the barriers. I am proud of the actions taken by my party over the past 15 years so that now 81 out of the 257 Labour MPs are women—more than the Conservative and Liberal Democrat women MPs combined—but that is still not enough. It is great that in the selections that have taken place in our target seats 54% of them have gone to women.

I know that many Lib Dem and Conservative noble Baronesses speaking today, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, are doing everything they can to improve their female representation in Parliament, and I pay tribute to them. I have to say that leadership on this has to come from the top, and having only five women as full members of the Cabinet is not a good example. Our commitment is to have a Cabinet with 50% women. It probably will not help the cause of the noble Baronesses opposite to know that they have the support of our Benches, but I assure them that they do. It is our duty to do everything that we can to work for a more gender-balanced society in every way, using the talents of all. I had hoped to achieve this for my daughter but, while my generation has brought about change, standing on the shoulders of our mothers and grandmothers, we have not done nearly enough, so I now hope to make progress for my future granddaughter, who is not yet coming but will one day, I hope.

A 21st-century society in which just 23% of MPs are women, with one female judge in the Supreme Court and only four female CEOs in the FTSE 100 is almost intolerable, and every time I see the family photos of the G8, G20 or European Council, I want to scream.

All these things matter in terms of the economic life of our country and the world. Women’s empowerment goes hand in hand with economic empowerment. In the UK, too many women do not feel empowered. Millions are still struggling to fulfil their economic potential, and our economy suffers. It is estimated that gender inequality in the workplace in the UK costs 5% in lost GDP. As I think we will hear from my noble friend Lady Thornton, affordable childcare is one of the biggest barriers to women entering and remaining in the workforce, and today we heard more about the care crisis, exacerbated by cuts, which affects carers, who are predominantly female, and those they care for.

Shattered economies can be rebuilt with the help of women. I am not suggesting that our economy is shattered, I am talking about other places, but our economy is not doing so well. Last week, I was at a presentation of the work of Women for Women International, a brilliant organisation that helps women survivors of war, giving them support and confidence to rebuild their lives through learning new skills leading to economic activity, which in turn helps to rebuild society. These women are empowered in every way.

A couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to be in Pakistan with a CPA delegation, part of a partnership programme that has been established for women parliamentarians of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. We spent time with the Women’s Parliamentary Caucus which, as well as continuing its work promoting pro-women legislation in the national Parliament, intends to work closely with women legislators in the provincial assemblies to promote education and child and maternal health. Women’s lives are improving, albeit slowly, and there are some excellent laws on protecting a women’s right to inheritance, acid throwing, honour killings and equal marriage rights, to name but a few, but there is an enormous gap between intention and implementation. There needs to be a change in culture, a change in mindset, especially of the men, but this is a long process, and it is a barrier to the real empowerment of women.

As in every country, education is the key. You educate a man, and you educate an individual; you educate a woman, and you educate mankind. In Pakistan, the literacy rate is 46% and only 26% girls are literate, but action is being taken and there are plans to increase the 2% of GDP spent on education to 4%. In this country, I believe it is more than 6%. Of course, as in so many developing countries, there are many barriers to girls’ education in Pakistan: culture, safety, sanitation and distance in rural areas, to name but a few. We visited a senior girls’ state school in Rawalpindi, which was a real delight. We met the girls, their teachers, parents and local officials who are working with the Punjab schools reform road map. This is a huge programme supported by DfID, spearheaded by Sir Michael Barber, DfID’s special representative on education in Pakistan, and, of course, supported by Mohammad Sarwar, who is now the governor of the Punjab and who was formerly a Labour MP. I pay tribute to the phenomenal work of Sir Michael, which is making a real difference to children in Pakistan and will improve the future life chances of those children, their country and, I believe, the world. The results are deeply impressive, with an extra 1.5 million children enrolled in school, a daily student attendance rate of more than 90%, 81,000 new teachers hired on merit and 90% of schools with basic facilities.

Pakistan is a country with many challenges, not least in relation to security, but its democratic institutions are developing and deepening, and last year saw the first smooth transition of power from one civilian Government to another. To be a female politician in Pakistan takes courage—and money, I should add—but not as much courage as women politicians in Afghanistan. We met with two extraordinary, passionate women MPs who are strong and courageous advocates of women’s empowerment in every way. They live in a country where women’s literacy is 14%. I think about 40% of girls now go to school, but it is still a country where schools are systematically destroyed by the Taliban, and where women’s newly found freedoms are constantly threatened, as we heard in Questions. They must not be allowed to slip.

I should say in passing that I am deeply dismayed by the threat to women’s freedom on our own continent. The new Bill in Spain would reverse the changes of 2010 and allow abortion only in cases of rape or where women can prove that having a child would pose a severe risk to their physical or mental health. This is an outrage.

The women of Afghanistan literally risk their lives for women’s empowerment through democracy; they are prepared to die for it. Yet, to our shame, only 64% of women voted in the 2010 general election, and only 42% of women voted in the 2009 elections to the European Parliament. There is absolutely no doubt that democracy leads to freedom and empowerment for women. Women in our country died for the vote and, all over the world, they are still giving their lives for democracy. The situation in Ukraine is complex, but there is no doubt that a thirst for democracy, justice and freedom was the catalyst for many of the protesters in Independence Square. As women and men who enjoy the freedoms of democracy, who understand that it must be nurtured by votes in order to flourish, and who understand the power of the ballot box, we have a duty to encourage women to vote in all elections, to give them a voice and to ensure that those in power then develop and implement the policies that will empower women and have an impact on their lives. We who have a voice have a duty to work with others to break down the barriers that prevent or inhibit women from achieving positions of power and influence in the private and public sphere, including in our councils, parliaments and assemblies.

I will finish with the words of Emmeline Pankhurst, which are as relevant today as they were more than a century ago:

“We have to free half of the human race, the women, so that they can help to free the other half”.

12:16

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate, particularly following the noble Baroness and my noble friend. I strongly endorse their comments and the approach of trying to balance the huge opportunities in the developed world for women—transformational experiences, compared to our mothers and grandmothers—with the serious concern about the marginalised and underprivileged, not only in the West and the developed world but all around the world. It is that tension that we will have to address.

Last night in another place, a reception was held by Coca-Cola. I did not myself attend, but I will share with noble Lords the comments made by the global chairman of Coca-Cola, Muhtar Kent. When asked about the future, he said:

“The real drivers of the post American world, I believe, won’t be China, won’t be India, won’t be Brazil, won’t be any nation. The real drivers are going to be women: women entrepreneurs, women business, political, academic and cultural leaders, and women innovators. The truth is that women already are the most dynamic and fastest-growing economic force in the world today”.

I share that sense of energy and optimism. Time and again, we have seen new conquests. We have had the first woman Prime Minister; I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, complained about having only five women in the cabinet but, to me, geriatric as I am, that seems a mass. I think that I was the eighth woman in the Cabinet, and it was extraordinary to have two women together in the Cabinet. We have had the first Appeal Court judge. Many women firsts are in this House, such as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We have had the first woman chief constable and prison governor, and our second female Lord Speaker. The dramatic change is extraordinary; the question is how that can then be broadened and deepened.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

May I intervene on what the noble Baroness has said, because she is a rarity herself? Female Members of this House who were previously Tory Members of the other House stand at half the percentage of the Lib Dems or Labour. There have only been eight since the late Baroness Thatcher, and the noble Baroness is one of them; there have been six Lib Dems and 16 Labour Baronesses. What is the problem among the Tories with sending female former Members of the Commons to this place?

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone]

I do not want to be unduly provocative. I know the answer to this question. It was the case that people came to the House of Lords as a sign of achievement, so, generally, only people who had been in the Cabinet would come to the Lords. If the noble Lord looks at the situation, a disproportionate number of Labour Peers kindly made way from their safe Commons seats for an individual of No. 10’s choosing. The noble Lord may think that this is harsh, but that has always been the nature of the journey from the other place to the House of Lords for Commons Members. However, I am pretty confident that we will see more. I do not want to go too far with this partisan view, because I feel quite strongly about it. As the noble Lord is an endangered man, I do not want him to become too emotional and irrational as I proceed with my comments.

We now have slightly more females in the Lords than the Commons but, again, 22.5% in the Commons compared with the 23 out of 600 when I started seems a long way. So much so—as I have been diverted—because for four years, when I was first in the other place, I only ever wore a grey, black or blue suit, with a little bow at my neck and four buttons on the wrist, on the basis that if nobody mentioned that I was not a man, I would not mention it either. As time has gone on, maybe because of our own children, I have now come out as a fully fledged battleaxe, and I plan to continue with my thoughts.

Of course, there have been very interesting developments in the church. The first female priest was ordained in 1994, which was extraordinary for the Church of England, and now something like 22.5% of the clergy in the Church of England is female. We are all on tenterhooks to hear from the right reverend Prelate, but we very much hope that by the time we have this debate next year there will be a female bishop; whether that will be a female bishop who is entitled to sit in this place I know not. I very much hope that before I get carried away I will see progress in what must be one of the greatest Christian faiths of the world, the Roman Catholic Church, which to me simply has no leg to stand on. In case any noble Lords think that I am presumptuous to speak of another faith, there is an internal battle within my family on this subject, and I know the strength of feeling that exists on it. There should be change, because neither parliaments, God nor business should define us by our gender; what matters is our humanity and contribution.

I will start on the economy and business. Many in this House know that I am slightly impatient with the simplistic figure of the number of women on boards, as it does not reflect what is happening to women in the workplace. Be that as it may, we have to give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who was one of the great champions of Opportunity 2000, and to many other women. However, I regret to confess that a man leading that cause with his energy has been even more successful. We seem to have reached a tipping point. As my noble friend said, in 2010 12.5% of FTSE directors were women and the figure is now 20.4%. Of course, if you look only at the non-executive directors, the figure is right up at 25%. Executive progression is the issue, and it is too easy to overlook that.

I applaud the Lord Mayor of London, Fiona Woolf, who has undertaken a great deal of work on diversity during her year as mayor, developing a toolkit for what the key issues are for women as they go through the workplace: flexible time, mentors, work-life balance—arrangements that technology can make much easier. I have been very interested by the mentoring. Men often ring me and say that they have been mentoring a woman and tell me how impressive she is, to which I say, “I am so pleased that you have met her and understand her. I’ve known her for several years”. Therefore, I do not know what the mentoring is doing for the women, but it is very good indeed for the men and has taught them a thing or two. There are four chief executives of FTSE 100 companies, and there will soon be two chairmen, but of course, much more needs to be done. We are learning more about how that can be achieved.

I will move to another area. Too much time is given to women on boards, and quotas, which are ludicrous. I will look at education. My noble friend is herself an academic by background. When I became a Member of Parliament there were no female secondary school heads at all in my constituency. Now 71% of primary schools have a woman head, and 37% of secondary schools have a woman head, but still only 17.5% are vice-chancellors. What is the problem? Many people would think that academia was quite a female-friendly environment. Of course—and these are factors that you see in business and elsewhere—you continually have to publish, promote yourself, assert yourself and be a peacock. As we understand, the real difference between men and women in the workplace is that women are far less likely to push themselves forward and to be assertive and confident. But to have only 17.5% of university vice-chancellors as women puts the issue about women on boards in perspective. Nobody is talking about having 30% female vice-chancellors, but I think that that is rather more important, particularly as we all agree that it is in education that people learn about gender, expectations and stereotypes. The first female vice-chancellor was the Vice-Chancellor of the University of London, Professor Lillian Penson, and it has been steadily going up. In Sweden, 53% of the vice-chancellors are women, while in the US it is 26% and in Australia 23%. As we now know, more than half of graduates are women. So I ask people to look at the issue of women on boards in the context of other professions and activities, and we could cover many other areas.

If we are to have quotas, there is only one quota that I care about. The last figures that I had—I hope that the Minister will be able to explore this further—was that there were 4,370 schools in the UK in 2011 that had no male teacher. I feel much more strongly about having one male teacher in every school than I do about quotas and percentages. Many noble Lords will know that in many schools in disadvantaged areas children have little experience of a supportive man, and this seems critically important.

However, the world situation is optimistic. Quite soon, there will be four more female millionaires, and in the UK female millionaires will outnumber male millionaires by 2020. By 2025, women will control 60% of the UK’s wealth; globally, women control £13 trillion, while 70% of all US and UK personal wealth is held by over-65s, and the majority are women. In China, one in three of the millionaires is female. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and overall I am optimistic.

But I need to go to the other end of the spectrum, because this is the contradiction in women’s matters. Many in this House speak about the problems of women in prison. Some 38% of women in prison are simply there for theft, or stolen goods; overwhelmingly, 81% are there for non-violent offences. Women in prison have huge and complex needs; there is suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual abuse and violence. It is appalling, quite apart from the estimated 17,000 to 18,000 children who experience their mothers being in prison, which is quite unlike the situation for men. Concern is frequently expressed in this place about that, and I am looking forward tomorrow to going to HMP Bronzefield, the largest female prison in Europe, with category A and young offenders, to see Pimlico Opera perform “Sister Act”. The degree to which people outside prisons are becoming involved—not only in education but in the arts, including the Watts Gallery, which does a great deal at HMP Send, a female prison—is exciting and special. But this is a highly needy and disadvantaged group.

Similarly, I commend to the House the comments of Dr Suzanne Clisby of the International Council for Human Rights, when she spoke at the UN about the appalling situation of female violence in conflict zones. My noble friend referred to DfID, and I am very pleased about her comments on that, because the work that it has undertaken on the theory of changing tackling violence against women and girls, which I urge interested noble Lords to consider, is highly regarded. Dr Clisby, like others, works at the gender institute of the University of Hull, at which I am so proud to be chancellor. This is an internationally regarded institution for gender studies, addressing in much greater depth than any of us can the topics that we have been discussing today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned her visits to two Indian villages. In India, the literacy rate for women is 65%. As she said, it is 26% in Pakistan, and I am very proud to have a niece working for DfID in Pakistan. I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on the work done by Sir Michael Barber, but who in this House knows that there are eight female chief executives of banks in India, including those of Merrill Lynch, the Bank of India, Credit Suisse, HSBC, ICICI, JP Morgan Chase and the State Bank of India? Again, it is a case of looking at the paradoxes and trying to chart a way through.

I hope that this debate, as with previous debates on this subject, will help us celebrate the successes, while taking nothing for granted, and re-energise our determination to ensure that women the world over and throughout our own country can maximise their potential and make the rich contribution that they so much want to make to not only the economy but society at large.

12:31

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate today on a topic of significant importance in this day and age and one which is dear to my heart. Like many, I have received a wealth of data and information to help support my arguments. I am delighted that my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, has chosen this topic for his maiden speech. I look forward to hearing what he has to say and wish him well.

As we have already heard, getting women into the workplace is an international problem. A report published in the Economist in October 2012 stated that in the next decade nearly 1 billion women are likely to enter the global labour force, but their economic potential is largely unrealised. If female employment rates matched those of men, GDP would increase by 5% in America and 9% in Japan by 2020. The impact would be even larger for developing countries, home to most of the world’s women who lack adequate education and support, both social and political. Increasing female employment would increase GDP significantly in countries such as India and Egypt, where female labour participation rates are below 30%. In Egypt, GDP would increase by 108% and in Britain by 13%.

When first elected as Leader of Somerset County Council in 2001 in the middle of the foot and mouth crisis, I chaired the Cabinet of six women and one man. My male colleague frequently made reference to the fact that he was the “token male” and obviously felt uncomfortable. His female colleagues, however, were perfectly satisfied with the situation. However, it was not long before the other men in the group started to whisper and plot to “get rid of some of these women and replace them with men”. There being more men than women in the group, at the next annual meeting they did, in fact, replace two of the women with men. The women were devastated as they had worked hard, got to grips with their briefs and done a good job. The replacement men were only satisfactory in their roles but terribly proud of themselves for their achievement in having got promotion to the “inner circle”, as they saw it. Sadly, behaviour such as this is typical of the ethos which exists in some workplaces. Why is it that some men feel so threatened by women? Is it that we are better at juggling—if you are to have a job and bring up a family, it is essential that you are an expert juggler—or is it some other reason?

Access to safe and affordable quality childcare is key to women fulfilling their potential in the workplace and contributing to the economy of our country. The report out this week from the Family and Childcare Trust reveals that families are paying around 4.7% more on average for part-time childcare than they spend on an average mortgage. This is an enormous sum and we should be doing more to address the issue of a ready, cost-effective supply of childcare. We know from Department for Education surveys that more women would return to work if they could access childcare that did not cripple them financially. One in five working mothers said that they would like to increase their hours if they could arrange,

“good quality childcare which was convenient, reliable and affordable”.

Parents in Britain use more than a quarter—26.6%—of their salaries on childcare, more than any other European country, except Switzerland.

The return of women to the workplace after having children is not without its personal costs. As a working mother I cursed school inset days and came to dread the school holidays. Racked by guilt that I was not spending enough time with my children, I searched around for clubs and activities that I hoped my children would enjoy so that they would not have to spend quite so much time with the childminder. I reduced my working week so that I got home earlier and could go out for walks and picnics to spend some quality time with them, but I was always left with the feeling that I had somehow let them down, although they never said anything to compound that feeling.

As a country we must do everything we can to encourage women to return to the workplace after having families. We can now see examples of employers who, instead of denigrating the fact that women go off to have families, are recognising that the skills gained in this experience far outweigh those of their male colleagues. Any woman who has negotiated with a three year-old determined to participate in a life-threatening activity and done so without the resultant tears and tantrums in a very public place can well deal with negotiations between her male colleagues’ testosterone-driven ego trips. Women also bring a different perspective to problem solving which, together with their male colleagues’ approach, often produces a more rounded solution.

Some women suffer discrimination in the workplace simply because they are women. Often it is women higher up the structure of their employers who attempt to keep their female colleagues down instead of encouraging them. They have had to struggle to get where they are and wish their counterparts to have the same experience. It is certainly the case that in many professions, in order for women to succeed, they have to behave and act like their male counterparts to be taken seriously, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley so graphically demonstrated to us.

The Government are keen to encourage young people into the STEM subjects at school, but young women need to be aware that they will have a struggle on their hands. In a large hospital in the south, of 439 consultants, 74% are men and only 26% are women. In that hospital there are 53 dieticians but only one is a man. In the nursing profession only about 10% are men. This speaks volumes of how the health service views the roles of men and women. Does this also say something about how difficult women find it to juggle families and high-pressured careers? It is certainly the case that women find it easier to have careers in the NHS than in engineering, for instance.

Many women work in small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses believes that it is vital to support female entrepreneurship. In the UK alone, 150,000 additional start-ups would have been created each year if women had started businesses at the same rate as men. The FSB has worked to promote female entrepreneurship and to look at the barriers particularly faced by women in starting businesses. Nearly half the businesses established in the past two years in retail, hotels, catering and leisure were primarily owned by women. Of the businesses that are members of the FSB, 26.9% are female-owned. The sectors with the highest proportion of female-owned businesses are: health and social work, 45.5%; education, 44%; and personal services, 42.5%. These businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. Without the services provided by these small businesses, many other women would be unable to go out to work at all.

On the international aspect of our debate today, I am indebted to my noble friend Lady Falkner for the following figures. She regrets that another engagement prevents her being present today and taking part in the debate. In response to questions to the FCO, my noble friend received the following information on the role of senior women. EU Permanent Representatives: nine men, no women; NATO Permanent Representatives: eight men, one woman; UN agencies heads of mission, New York: eight men; no women; UN agencies heads of mission, Geneva: seven men, two women; heads of mission to China, Russia, France and the US: 31 men, one woman; heads of mission to Germany and Italy: 17 men, no women; heads of mission to the 11 BRICS countries: 93 men, seven women. This really is not good enough.

We all know that women are perfectly capable of filling their place in society at all levels. We must do everything we can to make sure that no barriers are put in their way to prevent them achieving and assisting our economy in benefiting from their considerable skills. I look forward to the contributions from your Lordships during the rest of the debate and I hope that at the end of the day we can take some positive steps in going forward.

12:41

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, the noble Baroness could well have said, “Bishops’ Benches: 26 men, no women”, but I am glad that she did not, although I am sure that others will.

I rise with an appropriate hesitancy as the first male speaker in a debate in which only 22% of the speakers will be men. The majority of those listening are also women, which is a pity. However, I look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, whom I can only describe as a fellow Daniel in the lion’s den on this occasion. Indeed, those who inhabit these Benches might be seen as somewhat handicapped in advocating the fuller involvement of women in the wider life of our society. As we are regularly reminded, ours are the only Benches from which women are currently excluded. I hope that I can say something today about that and about the wider significance of the struggles of the church over the full involvement of women in its life. I want to speak specifically about the Church of England only because that is, obviously, the organisation that I know best.

Perhaps I may give the House an update on the gender-specific character of the Bishops’ Benches. The question for the Church of England in recent decades has not really been, “Should women be able to be bishops?”. That was settled quite a long time ago. The delay has been due to the questions over whether and how to accommodate those who do not wish to recognise and receive the sacramental and spiritual ministry of female bishops. Some Members of your Lordships’ House will perhaps think that such views simply should not be accommodated at all, and I can understand that feeling. However, the reasons why the church has wrestled with the question of how to accommodate those who do not wish to accept the ministry of women bishops is twofold. The first is, quite simply, that we are a national church—a comprehensive church—in our self-understanding, and that leads to a deep instinct to keep on board as wide a range of people as possible. Deciding how that is done and how the limits are set is quite tricky for a national church. Secondly, the great majority of Christians alive today belong to churches where women are not ordained: the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches and many of the more conservative Protestant churches. Therefore, looked at internationally, what is very much a minority opposition to ordained women and women bishops in the Church of England is actually a majority position in world Christianity.

Those are the reasons why our discussions and processes have been rather drawn out, but there is now an agreed way forward and we are confident that final proposals will be before the Ecclesiastical Committee later this summer, with, we hope, final parliamentary approval before the end of the year. The first women bishops should be appointed during next year, perhaps early next year. They will subsequently appear on these Benches, perhaps by some fast-tracking mechanism if that can be agreed through the parliamentary process.

I began by setting this out partly to provide the House with up-to-date information on this matter and partly because the catalyst to the rapid progress which we are now seeing in the church has a wider relevance to today’s debate. Until 2012, the Church of England had tried, for the first of the reasons I gave earlier, to accommodate opposition to the ordination of women by framing proposals which restricted the authority of women bishops in their dioceses on the face of the church’s legislation. This rightly elicited the criticism that in some sense the resultant women bishops would have a second-class character about them, with an authority which was restricted as compared with their male counterparts. For some, that was an acceptable compromise as a way to get the legislation through. However, it failed in its purpose because a small but significant group of synod members who favoured opening the episcopate to women felt that the proposal lacked a certain inner integrity. I was among those and for that purpose I abstained in the vote in November 2012, when the legislation narrowly failed to achieve the necessary majorities.

In the subsequent discussion, an honest assessment of what we were doing and where we are has produced the right conclusion in my view that the only way forward was a simpler proposal which opened the episcopate to women, essentially without any qualification. Such provision as may be made then for those who are not prepared to receive the ministry of a woman bishop would be made pastorally by the woman bishop herself under her proper authority, with guidelines from the House of Bishops to try to achieve a certain consistency across the Church of England. My point is that it was when it was realised that there could be no reservation or disguised discrimination attached to women bishops that the log-jam suddenly cleared and the way forward appeared. The woman bishop will have in her diocese exactly the same authority and jurisdiction as her male colleagues. Really, we should have seen that much earlier, as I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House will think. I think that that is why the process has ended up being rather drawn out.

I suggest that in other areas of our national life, our economy, to define that word in its broadest context, will have seen parallel struggles for women to be accepted in their own right, with their own particular gifts and talents, rather than simply being expected to conform to the established ways and practices as laid down by decades or perhaps centuries of male dominance. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, referred to that in relation to the other place. I am sure that other noble Lords will refer to that themselves. Speaking personally, I have two daughters who are both making their ways successfully through two of our leading professions, but there has always been the subtext that, “As long as you conform to a man’s world, we will give you every opportunity”. There is still quite a lot to be done sensitively to adapt our national life and professional life to the talented women whose gifts we so much need. Our experience in the church suggests that these issues ultimately need to be addressed head on, without too much compromise and the resultant disguised discrimination.

Let me conclude with some remarks about the wider contribution of women to the economy of the church; that is, the “household” of the church—the word “economy” in its original derivation means “household”. I would not want my earlier remarks about women bishops to be detached from the wider contribution that women make to the life of the church. Much of that is done on a voluntary basis and there is nothing wrong with that. Armies of people care for the parish churches of this land, which comprise nearly half our grade 1 listed buildings. There is all the cleaning and adornment of those buildings, and the wonderful skills of flower arrangers, which so often are neglected but actually adorn our churches. I always remark on that each Sunday as I go around my diocese—although not while we are in Lent, but I shall look forward to doing that at Easter.

Alongside that there is the wide range of pastoral work with women to the fore, including the gathering and distribution of food through food banks, which are now such an important, if ambiguous, feature of our society, and in which local churches and Christians are usually involved. I want to pay a deep tribute to all that work. Then there are the growing numbers of women priests, the first of whom were ordained just 20 years ago. We will have a splendid celebration this summer. Dare I say that I am contemplating ordering crates of pink champagne to distribute in my diocese? Today, about a third of all licensed clergy in the Church of England are women—a figure that looks likely to rise steadily to a half on current patterns of ordination. The number who are in charge of parishes, incumbents, is the figure given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, which is about 22% but rising steadily. I should add that more than half our licensed readers who assist the ordained ministry, preach and lead services are women.

As we prepare for the consecration of women as bishops, perhaps the greatest challenge is to accept that through the progressive process of opening up the ministry of the Church to women, there has been, there is and there will be a progressive and deep transformation of the church and its ministry—the institution of the church in all its aspects. There is an awareness of these issues and careful work is being done in advance of the first consecration to the episcopate to try to avoid inadvertent pressure for these women simply to conform to established male stereotypes. We must acknowledge that the pressure will subtly be there in all sorts of ways. “God forbid!”, your Lordships may say. Women have transformed the economy of the church in all its aspects and I am confident that in the years to come they will continue to do so.

12:51

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise if my voice waxes and rasps, but I am suffering from a severe case of man flu—let us be honest: is there any other kind? But it is a great privilege to participate in this debate and particularly to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Palumbo, which will be interesting. We should all listen to it with a bangin’ drum ‘n’ bass dance track underpinning everything that he says.

In preparing for this debate, I looked up the variety of international days that exist. They are rich and varied and all incredibly important. It is worth mentioning a couple of them alongside 8 March, which is obviously the purpose of this debate. In two weeks’ time, 20 March is International Day of Happiness. I think that we will all enjoy that one. I was born on the International Day of Rural Women—an incredibly significant day. That was lucky and auspicious in many ways in that I only just, marginally, avoided being born, with more than a degree of irony, on World Sight Day.

I will limit my comments today to three areas of my experience: the law, London 2012 and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, for which my interest is declared in the register. The first is the law. I started many years ago as a solicitor in the City of London, where there were many schemes to try to get more females into the profession. There were many schemes but there was not much outcome at that stage. There were very few women as senior associates and even fewer as partners in City firms. I found out an incredible fact when I started: only a few years earlier, women solicitors were actually prevented from wearing trousers in their profession. That was extraordinary in the 1990s in this country.

Now, the picture is incredibly different. The figures between the genders are far more positive. There are female partners and many more female senior associates, and the work that the Lord Mayor of London is doing in her mayoral year with the project on diversity can only be a further positive action in this area.

When I went to London 2012, I had a clear approach and understanding of diversity and inclusion, and we embedded those right from making the bid, even before we had won the right to stage the Games. The key is for this always to be led from the top. My noble friend Lord Deighton was completely committed to equality, diversity and inclusion across the piece, not least in the area of gender. Look at our director team at LOCOG. Our HR director, comms director, strategy director and general counsel were all extraordinary and phenomenal females. Perhaps more significantly, our director of sport, that traditionally very male Olympic role, was Debbie Jevans. It was an absolutely extraordinary move. She took the sport programme for 2012 from the bid right through to Games time. We drove down into the heads, managers and assistants the need for gender equality throughout the organising committee, and it made a difference. Both in the organisation and at Games time, it absolutely made a difference.

Similarly, we wanted our volunteers, the Games Makers, to be truly representative of Great Britain, and gender was at the heart of that. Not only did it lead to the scenes of the fantastic Games Makers that we are all so well aware of, it gave more than just a nod to the phenomenal work done by volunteers up and down Great Britain, many of whom—the majority, in fact—are female.

I shall move on to those who were centre stage in 2012: the athletes. The first gold medal for Team GB at the Olympic Games was won by Helen Glover and Heather Stanning. I was lucky enough to be at Eton Dorney Lake to experience that golden morning. The person who became the face of the London 2012 Olympic Games was Jessica Ennis. What a phenomenal female she is in terms of sporting performance and her personality. She did not just focus on potentially winning gold at London 2012, she was part of driving ticket sales and maintained people’s interest in and connection with the Olympic Games.

For the first time female and male Paralympians were seen to be on an equal footing with their Olympic counterparts. Ellie Simmonds was such a draw for the crowd that the swimming pool was packed for all her finals. The roar for her final in the 400-metre freestyle event was as loud as it had been for anything during the Olympic Games. Ditto Sarah Storey, a phenomenal swimmer who turned to cycling. I was lucky enough to be in one of the technical cars down at Brands Hatch for the road race and I heard our chief technical officer come on to the radio and say, “She’s not only beating the girls, she’s whipping the boys”. Those were phenomenal performances.

Let us come right up to date with Sochi 2014. Team GB’s gold medal was won by Lizzy Yarnold, and Jenny Jones’s bronze medal was not just a medal—she is the first Briton ever to win a medal on snow. I am sure that the whole House would like to wish our women and men who are to start their Paralympic campaign tomorrow at the Sochi Winter Paralympic Games every success.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

And so on to my time at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I joined the new board last January. It will be a phenomenal challenge for us across the piece. The board is ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. I sit on a board of 10 people, two of whom are men.

[A noble Lord]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

I knew that the House would enjoy that. We are facing a challenge, not least in the area of enabling the opportunity for women to participate and punch through in the labour market. We are doing a big piece around what is happening with maternity arrangements and how they are shaping up in modern Britain. We are working wider than just the FTSE 100 around board-level appointments. But, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley said, it goes beyond that. It is not just about the board, so we are also going to look at what is called the sticky floor. It is one thing to look, quite rightly, at not just going through but smashing the glass ceiling, but you also have to look at that sticky floor—people, often women, stuck on minimum wage and unable to get up that next rung of the ladder. It is a crucial piece of work.

Again, we should not look at this area without putting 100% focus on education; what it does and all the influences and impacts within it. On that point, the importance of role models can never be overestimated or overstated. That is the case in sport but also in business, art, science, technology and music—right across the piece, and not least in your Lordships’ House. On a day such as today it would be invidious to single out particular Members, but I will. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have blazed a trail through our courts for others to follow. It is so important to have role models so that people can say, “I could do that; there is someone doing that—that is a realistic opportunity for me”. While looking into this, I was surprised that the great win for the law of having the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, might not have happened as, when she was a young woman, apparently she considered becoming a nun. Many of your Lordships may not know that she is also an excellent rollerblader.

I should also mention my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint, who did so much for women’s cricket. She was absolutely a trailblazer at the time, putting women’s cricket right at the centre of the stage and enabling others to get involved with the game and for it to get to such a level that, this winter, England’s women won the Ashes. Let us be honest—England’s men fell somewhere short. That was phenomenal work.

Finally, it would be wrong not to mention the legendary noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Who could have done more, not just for the economy but for our freedom, than all the women who were involved at Bletchley Park? What a phenomenal thing, which we should all feel not just such pride in but tremendous gratitude for, because it enables us to be the nation that we are today.

There it is: 8 March, International Women’s Day. It is a great day and one well worth being marked. It is a day to reflect, respect, celebrate and champion and, crucially, a day for us all to push ourselves even further to think what more we could do to enable every single person in this country to achieve their full potential—be that in sport, art, technology, science, maths or whatever it is—and to ensure that everybody, regardless of gender, class, background or belief has that opportunity to play their full part in our economy, in our society and in our United Kingdom.

13:03

[Lord Palumbo of Southwark (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Northover for bringing this debate forward and allowing me the opportunity to contribute today. I would also like to thank noble Lords too numerous to mention for their warm welcome. It is an honour to be speaking for the first time. I owe a debt of gratitude to the excellent staff who have helped me navigate my new life as a Peer. Throughout the past few months I have been gently admonished and warmly supported in equal measure. Finally, I thank my noble friends Lord Strasburger, Lord Alliance, Lady Suttie and Lady Scott of Needham Market for their support and encouragement, none of which is taken for granted.

While businessmen such as myself can be a little abrasive in their day-to-day dealings, I have chosen this Motion for my maiden speech for the cross-party nature of the issue. Despite recent stories demonstrating the numbers of women in work, there is still more to do to ensure that women can work should they want to. It is not just for women to make this case, we should all do so. I do not think anyone in this Chamber would disagree with this. The great imponderables of affordable childcare and flexible working still disproportionately shackle many women of working age. This will change only if we work together. I believe that the best solutions are found when people from all parties put their heads together and differences aside.

It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I did some research on maiden speeches before today. Indeed, it may not have taken me four months to deliver my own had there not been such a wealth of material available. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond—put it perfectly in her own, exceptional, speech. She said,

“the idea of cross-party co-operation on major national issues seems so incontrovertible”.—[Official Report, 19/11/97; col. 600.]

I believe in the role of this place, its personalities and its power to deliver on major national issues. It is often women who drive change and bridge partisan divides. Only last week, we were privileged to be addressed by the German Chancellor, a role model for pragmatism and progress, not to mention her thoughtful views on the future of Europe. I should also mention my dear friend Dame Tessa Jowell, who sits in the other place and had the foresight to work across party lines to make the Olympics such a success.

Twenty-five years ago, I started a nightclub in a disused warehouse five minutes from where your Lordships now sit, on the other side of the river. It did not open until midnight and served no alcohol. It was a difficult beginning and had all the problems of a late-night business, not least frequent visits from the right honourable Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. Building a business from scratch has been the biggest challenge of my life. Trying things out, making mistakes too numerous to mention, has been a difficult but also life-enhancing experience. Over the years, the business has expanded into live events, recorded music and digital media. What was previously a disused warehouse is now the proud headquarters of a global enterprise. It is this journey which has shaped my views on the topic of today’s proceedings.

The late-night entertainment and music industries are by their nature male dominated. While my own appearance might not immediately give this away, the world I inhabit is as muscular as you can imagine. At the Ministry of Sound, women occupy four of the nine most senior director positions and there is roughly a 50:50 male to female ratio at intermediary and junior levels. I do not hold up my organisation as an exemplar, but the empathy and common sense of women has played a key part in building my business over the years. The issue then becomes how to strike the right balance when women want to start a family. There are a plethora of rules and regulations, which are fine as far as they go, but there is a difference between following the rulebook and creating an atmosphere of empowerment. Recently, we have been in discussions with a woman to join the business in a senior position. She is uncertain, as she wants to start a family within two years. Our view is that she would be able to build her team within this timeframe and that her skills outweigh the perceived inconvenience of flexible working.

We will have done our job if starting a family is seen as career enhancing, not a problem, and something which goes beyond the strictures of HR—support rather than compromise. While I am sure there will be many excellent suggestions made in this debate, it is perhaps more difficult to legislate for the attitude to which I refer. If we can win hearts and minds, so as to encourage a more embracing type of behaviour, I believe that businesses of all types will change for the better.

13:09

[Baroness Bakewell (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak immediately after such an excellent maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo. It is great that he chose such a debate—it was rather bold of him—and very indicative of his business acumen that he should be contemplating the appointment that we would all welcome among his senior staff.

Today we have heard lots of statistics and a scattering of percentages, full of aspiration and achievements so far, and I commend my fellow Peers on the range of subjects that they have already covered, praising things that have gone well and expressing widespread concern for remaining issues. I will take a different, slightly lighter note.

I will begin by celebrating a single overarching triumphant professional success. The novelist JK Rowling has now earned her way to being the richest working woman in the country. She is currently worth £220 million and last year earned £45.5 million—not bad for someone who trusted to her own talent and began her first fiction at a table in a café in Edinburgh.

Now I want to celebrate some less well known names: a group of women, some of whom your Lordships may have heard of and others you may well not have. They do not earn a great deal of money—yet. Indeed, their chosen path has often involved denying themselves any kind of decent living as they struggle to get started. They are not household names—yet—but their influence is manifold, and I will explain why. I refer to the surprising blossoming and coming to top professional recognition of a whole swathe of women playwrights. This has happened in the past 10 years or so, encouraged by a background of arts funding in this country that allows for the experiment, daring and risk-taking that a fully commercial theatre world would never make possible.

I will name some names. The grandmother of them all is probably Caryl Churchill. She is now 74 and she established an international reputation in 1972 with her inspirational play, “Top Girls”, at London’s Royal Court Theatre. This sensational work broke new ground in dealing directly and vividly with the situation of women in society. Many of these young writers do the same. Nina Raine is the author of a searing, witty and critical look at the National Health Service. April de Angelis is the author of “Jumpy”, a play starring Tamsin Grieg, currently in the West End. debbie tucker green won an Olivier award in 2003. Polly Stenham’s first play, “The Face”, written in her early 20s, transferred to the West End and then to Broadway and won a shoal of awards. Laura Wade’s play “Posh”, a satire on a club not unlike the Bullingdon, was a West End hit. Lucy Prebble wrote “Enron”, a hilarious and clever take on the Enron scandal—you could not get a ticket. Lucy Kirkwood, Bola Agbaje and Abi Morgan are of that number, as are Sarah Daniels, Helen Edmundson—your Lordships get the idea. Rebecca Lenkiewicz was the first woman to have an original play, “Her Naked Skin”, performed on the National Theatre’s main stage. Moira Buffini’s play “Handbagged” is coming to the West End.

All those primarily young women write of the world they know and as women in that world. They are significant in two ways. First, they put ideas into circulation: ideas about women, their rights, lives, problems, humour and situations. Those ideas are not only entertaining in themselves but are challenging for the audiences who see them and spill out into the world beyond to families, communities and public life. They help shape and change national attitudes.

Their second significance is in contributing to the thriving cultural industry of this country. The turnover of the arts last year was £12.4 billion. Despite the economic downturn, the arts economy did not suffer; it kept on growing. There are many women among its leaders. Women run the Donmar Warehouse, the Tricycle Theatre, the Liverpool Playhouse, the Royal Court Theatre, the British Film Institute, Film4 Productions, the Whitechapel Gallery, the Serpentine Gallery, Tate Modern and the South Bank arts complex, and they do this with the overt and positive encouragement of their male colleagues. It is an ongoing and impressive story of creative and economic success.

There is a completely different story of success that I think we should remark on. It is totally unlike the bright lights of the theatre but it is a success that contributes some £119 billion to the economy, not in direct earnings and income but in economic value to the country. There are some 7 million carers in this country, many offering their care totally freely, others in receipt of a derisory carer’s allowance. Unpaid carers are the backbone of our health and social care system: it would collapse without them. Now, 58% of those carers are women. Women have a 50:50 chance of becoming a carer by the time they are 59; for men, it is not until they are 75. Many of them give up work in order to care. It is this cohort of women, mostly in their 50s, who, in giving up their working lives, indirectly contribute to the saving of £119 billion for the country. They deserve our respect.

13:16

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is an immense privilege to take part in this debate. We are treading the courageous path of brave women and we are emboldened by their struggles and confidence. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I would have added Gurinder Chadha and Meera Syal—

[Baroness Bakewell]

And Lolita Chakrabarti.

[Baroness Uddin]

—to her illustrious list of those who have contributed immensely to the arts.

I speak today in recognition of the centuries-long struggle by women to participate freely and equally in the workplace. When New York’s garment workers took to the streets on 8 March 1857 to demonstrate for a 10-hour day, better conditions and equal rights, they inspired the first International Women’s Day half a century later. Remembering their march, I also remember the more than 1,000 women who perished only last year in the Dhaka factory disaster. We continue to mark the day, not out of nostalgia but because we are still plagued by inequality and injustice in all our worlds.

Too many women want to work but are prevented from contributing as fully to the economy as they wish. I have spoken in this Chamber on a number of occasions about the fact that only a quarter of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women are economically active. That is a terrible waste of talent. At Questions we spoke about the role of women in public life. I want to trade some statistics with your Lordships. There are about 300,000 Bangladeshi women who are British citizens and not one of them has made it to the Benches opposite. I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jenkin and Lady Northover, will do something to address the lack of Bangladeshi women on their Benches.

This is not just a question of prosperity for our country but is about justice for women. We cannot have whole communities of women excluded from our mainstream institutions and workplaces. Over the past year, I talked with a number of women’s groups that visited Parliament and asked their views on why women feel excluded from the workplace. The reasons they provided are not new. Many face social, cultural and institutional barriers. Many say they are not qualified or educated enough or do not have access to adequate childcare. The Family and Childcare Trust revealed only this Tuesday that on average the annual cost of childcare exceeds the repayments on a mortgage. As childcare costs soar, women are pushed out of the workforce to care for their families or into other caring responsibilities. Many will never return full-time, at a cost to their career progression and our economy.

Many women, including those from minority communities, who care for children or adults with disabilities face insurmountable obstacles and prejudice that prevent them working. It has been mentioned that nearly 7 million carers—nearly one-10th of the population of England and Wales—provide unpaid care for a disabled family member or friend. We know that the majority of them are women. They make a huge contribution to the economy as well as enhance the quality of the lives of those for whom they provide care. We have come a long way in providing safety nets within the framework of the law and have countless examples of good facilities in the education and childcare sector. Yet so often parents hesitate to explore outside work, lacking confidence that those they care for are in safe hands. There is a huge disparity between the intentions and rhetoric of institutions and service providers on the one hand, and the reality on the ground and the experience of carers and people with disability or disadvantage on the other.

I speak from personal experience as the mother of an autistic son. We have struggled for more than three decades and I confess that it has been without any support or co-operation from the education system or local authority. I have been fortunate to have support from my husband and I managed, mostly badly, a full-time career. Too many others are not so fortunate and paid work and caring responsibilities are often incompatible. The National Autistic Society discovered that a third of carers under the age of 40 would like to work but feel unable to do so. I know that many employers have adapted good practice in enabling flexibilities in their workplace to accommodate carers’ particular needs but this is not universal. Do the Minister and her department have statistics on how many parents with disabilities or disabled children work in the department? What lessons, if any, can we impart to others as good practice?

There has also been remarkable progress about working hours even in this House. I recall my early experience of this House when motherhood and childcare were absent from Parliament’s cultural DNA. A number of noble Lords here today will recall when a number of us made our maiden speeches about family-friendly policies in the House. I think that began at 10.40 pm and finished about 12.40 at night. When I brought in my then seven or eight month-old son for one hour on the first day I arrived here, the following morning a newspaper reported it as a slur on the professionalism of the House. Little known at the time or since is that as I was breast-feeding the entire side of my shalwar kameez was wet and it got on to the table. I have often wondered what the newspapers would have made out of that. The following morning, the honourable Black Rod promptly came over as soon as I entered the House and gave me a key. He said: “Here, Baroness Uddin—a key to the House’s family room we have just made for you downstairs, off the Peers’ Entrance”. Needless to say, I have never brought my son in since then or used that room. It was such a harsh lesson. I am glad to say that children can now accompany noble Lords—their parents—through the Lobby when we divide. That is, even symbolically, a definite triumph.

Like thousands of others, my family had to adapt all aspects of our lives in light of our son’s autism. We encountered a system of social care unresponsive to his and our needs and unwelcoming of us as carers. Securing the support of social services demands the tenacity to navigate a labyrinthine system and strength to endure scepticism and delay. Accessing these services while caring for a disabled person can be a full-time job. Our failure to serve the needs of those with disabilities and those who care for them comes at a human cost and with misery, as well as causing economic disadvantage. We as a family just gave up and opted out of the system into the family support structure—which was often at breaking point.

That is not an option for all and there have been many tragedies. Let us not forget the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Francesca Hardwick, a person with severe learning disabilities who suffered bullying and harassment. The failure of institutions and society overall to protect her family meant that Fiona Pilkington chose death for herself and her beloved daughter. In a civilised nation, that woman’s choice of suicide and death is a profound indictment of our support for society’s most vulnerable. How will the Government improve daycare for people with disabilities—autism in particular—to better enable their mothers and carers to pursue paid work where they desire, without putting into jeopardy the well-being of those they care for?

Finally, how do the Government intend to increase the employment prospects of Muslim women, who remain in the periphery of our society and are so poorly represented in the workforce, institutions and the boardroom? Will the Minister agree to meet the British Bangladesh Chamber of Women Entrepreneurs, which is working towards addressing some of these goals?

As a House, we are vocally committed to freeing women from violence, forced marriages and female genital mutilation but pay too little attention to the part that poor education and lack of economic independence play in these scourges. Debarring women or carers from opportunities for paid employment is a matter of not only individual interest but national prosperity. Without addressing these questions, we will hold a large number of women back from making their rightful contribution to our economy. Yes, we celebrate today the record proportion of women in the country who work and are in positions of authority. Long may that emancipation continue and widen. I salute those women who have blazed the trail of equality and justice for us all. Now we must be brazen about demanding the changes required. Above all, we must acknowledge that our economy and the fabric of our society will benefit exponentially when we are inclusive of all our countrywomen.

13:27

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, in opening the debate today, my noble friend Lady Northover referred particularly to the role of women in the Great War—the First World War. That struck a particular chord with me because only last night I chaired a meeting where several distinguished academics—all women, happily—gave a lot of information about the role of women in that war. I had a general knowledge of that contribution but had no idea of its immensity—the numbers of women and different occupations that they undertook. For example, I had no idea that there were women war photographers, not very many but some. I had no idea that until things really got going, a lot of the food for the men, the catering, was provided largely by volunteer women. We know about the heavy industries in which women engaged, and all the other things.

Of course, that had a remarkable effect in helping forward the greater role for women in the workplace. I fell to thinking whether, 100 years later, a similar challenge faces us today. Obviously it is not cataclysmic, as in the First World War, but it strikes me that, looking at the whole economic future of our country, we face great challenges. We are a small country and there is no way that we can mass produce for the world in the way that we might have done years ago. We increasingly rely on high-quality goods and, above all, high-quality services, whether that is in financial services or the kind that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to in the arts, which also have an enormous economic impact.

Given that, and the fact that many countries in the world now are developing very fast—China and India, for example, apart from any of our older European neighbours, which we are both in competition with and sell to—it struck me that we need every ounce of flair, initiative and hard work that we can get to make our way in this new world. If we fail to utilise the full potential of women, not only are we wasting women’s talent, we are likely to find ourselves in difficulty as a country. That is my starting point for my contribution to this debate.

Clearly, we need to give encouragement to those who are already high flyers. In that context, like others before me, I was delighted to welcome the initiative of the woman Lord Mayor of London, Fiona Woolf, in trying to make a programme for her year of office that will help women, especially in practical ways.

Those who come to the top, such as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others, do not come as a miracle, they come after a lifetime of career progression. It is very important that we look at the lower levels of careers to ensure that women are getting the support and encouragement that they need. In many cases, I fear that it goes back to our schools and our education system. That is particularly true in what is yet another horrid acronym, the STEMs—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—where I believe that the subjects are not taught well enough in schools and are probably not geared to the way that women look at things, and where girls, particularly in mixed classes, may find themselves overpowered by their male counterparts and do not see their role as being equally if not more important. We need to look very carefully at the education system in that respect.

Not everyone is going to be a high flyer and many people do a great deal in unpaid work. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned carers specifically. I deeply resent the fact that if you do work unpaid it is not regarded as proper work. It is high time that we got rid of this old attitude of, “You’re not working; you’re not paid”. The work may be very important indeed. It is not simply carers, it is in the upbringing of children. A lot of voluntary work is undertaken by women—probably more than by men—which can also have great economic value. It is important to pay tribute to those people, and I do so as a career woman who has not had those family responsibilities, but I can see what value they have.

I turn for a moment to the political scene. I am wary of quotas and all-women shortlists. I realise this is controversial. I would like from my party, or any other, come to that, for women always to be on the shortlist. It is often important that they can make their comments in front of the people and are not dismissed on the basis of a written CV. There are problems with being a candidate which may put women off. In all the talk about the scandal of MPs’ expenses that we have had for years, nobody ever seems to mention the expenses that are incurred by being a candidate. Rail travel or car travel, making arrangements if you are married and have children, can be quite expensive. There are practical difficulties that women face before they ever get to a seat on the Green Benches down the Corridor. I hope that my noble friend Lady Jenkin, who will look at all this, will take those points into consideration, because I think they are far more important at that stage in our political career.

I turn briefly to political life for women abroad. I want to share an experience I had some years ago, when the east European countries came out of communism and were developing their democratic structures. It was clear that the women, in particular, had no idea how to use that freedom. A friend of mine, Lesley Abdela, who may be known to others, the founder of the 300 Group, which I also supported, involved me in schemes she ran very successfully. They were workshops, usually at a weekend, in those various countries where practical advice was given by those with experience. I might talk about being a candidate or about the chairmanship, somebody else might speak about how you deal with the press, the media—all the things where you need some knowledge. Of course it has to be adapted to the local circumstances, but at least it gave them some idea of what was involved and how to set about it. On the question of quotas, they were always equally divided, but many of them, interestingly, did not want them because they were afraid of being considered less equal—token, only there because they were women. However, opinion was divided, as I am sure that it is divided in this Chamber.

That came to an end because the funding came to an end. If we really want to help women in countries where they are trying to make their mark, we should have something like that again. I leave that thought with the Minister to see whether something can be done in that respect.

Turning back, as a final thought, to our House, someone suggested, I think truly, that women are disproportionately important in this House despite our much lower numbers. It occurred to me, perhaps quixotically, that there might be merit in someone undertaking to look at all the respective careers of the women in this House related not to this House but to their outside careers, either past or present, to see what contribution that would make. I suspect that it would make spectacular reading.

13:37

[Baroness Prosser (Lab)]

I, in turn, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for tabling this debate today and join her in wishing others a very happy and progressive International Women’s Day.

When the noble Baroness opened the debate, she talked, among many other things, about the work currently being done which helps women who are rather towards the top of the employment field: getting more women on boards, et cetera. All that is very welcome and I am extremely pleased about it, but I want to concentrate my remarks on the situation for women who are rather further down. A woman who used to work in the Transport and General Workers’ Union used to say, “Stop talking about the glass ceiling. My women have not got past the skirting board”. An awful lot of women are in that position.

Back in 2004, I was asked by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to chair a commission of inquiry into the continuing gender, pay and opportunities gap—opportunities is an important word there. Eighteen months later, in February 2006, we produced our report, entitled Shaping a Fairer Future. We made 40 recommendations, many to government, many to employers and others; 98% of those recommendations were accepted. Our work took us across all four nations—we took evidence in Scotland, Ireland and Wales as well as in many places in England. Many people came to us. I felt as though I spent my life in the basement of the old DTI building, with no windows; it was quite a trying time. We took evidence from academics, from those involved in women’s organisations and from women themselves—younger women, older women and girls who were still at school. We came out with four main areas of concern, which plays to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who has just spoken. We said that education choices and careers advice was one of the first areas where it all starts to go wrong. Job segregation, lack of skills and training opportunities and poor quality part-time work were the others.

I will say a little about what we found, what we suggested and where I think we are now. The pay gap for full-time women as against full-time men, when we finished our work in 2006, was approximately 22%. Nowadays, it is 19.7% so it is going in the right direction but ever so slowly. If we compare the earnings of women in part-time employment as against men in full-time employment, the pay gap rises to over 40%. Some people would say that that is an unfair comparison but it shows us that the value of part-time jobs is generally pretty low. We decided at that stage that this was not a discussion about the legalities of equal pay, although those obviously can be talked about. We wanted to look at what the whole opportunity was for some kind of social change: for social programmes and a cultural shift in the workplace, which would enable more women to move forward.

Let me go back now to education choices and careers advice. We know that girls are doing better than boys overall. Nevertheless, many girls are still in the category of aiming low to avoid disappointment. That is something which needs to be addressed. There is a massive shortage of girls going into the engineering trades, and of course in order to go into those trades they need the sciences and good mathematics. First, we suggested that girls and boys should be in separate classes for those lessons. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, just mentioned that point. That was because girls get a bit overwhelmed by boys who, all the evidence tells us, talk far more than girls in classrooms, and because the teaching of those areas concentrates almost entirely on the ways in which boys look at these things.

Secondly, we discovered an organisation called Computer Clubs for Girls, which teaches girls about the ins and outs of a computer in a way that they appreciate. It talks about the different kind of programmes that girls would find interesting—and girls engage with that. They do not want to do computer programmes that are all about wars and fighting, which do not suit them, so special attention being paid to the different ways in which girls and boys think is important.

Thirdly on this area, we found that very few young women were ever advised when they were girls at school about the financial implications of the choices that they were making. Yes, we need beauty therapists and hairdressers but they will not earn quite as much money doing that as in many of the areas of employment where you find young men.

This brings me on to careers advice. At that time, the careers service was run by Connexions, which has gone now. We found Connexions to be a very mixed bag and that careers advice was just an add-on to the role of teachers. However, over the last year or so I have chaired a number of conferences on careers advice and, to a man and woman, everybody is really fed up and anxious about the standard and the system that we currently have. It has been devolved down to all schools, so that 4,000-odd senior schools are all doing their own thing and engaging with private companies to help them. There is no teacher interaction taking place. The Department for Education spends 0.04% of its budget on careers advice, so we are the only country in the developed world that spends more on careers advice for adults than for children, which is not terribly helpful.

All those points move us into the job segregation area. Women are vastly contained within administration, retail and caring services, et cetera. Even if young women leave school and get into half-way decent jobs, if they then have children where do they go? They go completely down the career path. There are many women in that position who can afford childcare for one child but do not earn enough to afford childcare for more than one. They end up working in the retail sector in the main where, because of the long hours which the retailers have to be open, those women have to accommodate a whole variety of shift patterns. However, those jobs are poorly paid and often have few progression opportunities and poor job satisfaction.

We end up where everyone is really a loser because the woman herself has gone down the pay scales and the job opportunities ladder, while the employer which she was originally with has lost somebody who they had trained up, even if only at a pretty small level. The Government also lose because the woman is paying less tax; she may not even be paying tax at all. Even in 2006, we calculated with the assistance of economists from what was then the DTI that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was losing between £15 billion and £23 billion a year in spending power from those women who had gone down that financial ladder.

One of the things we recommended, as I think I said at the beginning, was that there should be much better quality part-time job opportunities available. There is a really good organisation called Women like Us, which was started by two women at the playground gates who said to each other, and to their friends who were waiting for the children to come out of school, “There must be something better out there”. They went round to employers and persuaded them of ways in which they could provide decent quality jobs with part-time hours, which would enable women to move forward. That organisation has gone from strength to strength. It has been working with KPMG and others and engaging with a large number of companies. However, we need a government initiative to put pressure on employers by saying, “Let’s up the game here. We have all these women who have a much greater capacity to work”. Yet those women are stuck there doing the kind of retail jobs which are poorly paid, as I have said.

There is the whole question of retraining and reskilling. We find these women who have fallen out of their traditional path into jobs which are not giving them job satisfaction and then there is no opportunity for them to go anywhere because there are no retraining or reskilling chances. At the Budget a month after we launched the report in 2006 Gordon Brown, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, allocated £40 million to be spent on women-only training. That money has largely been allocated via the UK Commission for Employment and Skills and through the sector skills councils. In the five years of its running, it trained up and upskilled more than 25,000 women. It was academically researched three times by Leeds Metropolitan University and was found to be an excellent service, partly because the money which came from employers far outweighed the money which the Government put into it.

We then had all these women who were able to move on and expand their opportunities. It covered the textiles area; we also had women trained up as bus drivers and food workers; there were women in law, in the power sector and, interestingly, in the sector which includes engineering and manufacturing. That programme came to an end in March 2013, I am sad to say. I am not exactly sure how much of a chance women are going to get now, if that funding is not directly allocated to women only.

Finally, there is no silver bullet answer to any of this. There are a multitude of approaches to be made but government must have the political will to take the lead in encouraging employers and others to make better use of their female employees—not just those at the top on boards or those in the pipeline leading to boards. All that is important, as I have said, but those at the bottom may well have good ability too and a good opportunity to do rather more.

13:50

[Lord Watson of Richmond (LD)]

My Lords, I add from these Benches my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Palumbo on his excellent and refreshing maiden speech. He explained that his business was muscular; I have the sense that his contributions to this House will be as well. We welcome him warmly.

Back in April 2009, I had the strange experience of being invited to lecture at a university in Mecca. I was told that up to that point I was the first non-Muslim to be invited to lecture. The subject that was given to me, partly because of my involvement with Cambridge University, was excellence in higher education. I remember arriving by car and stopping outside the university’s marble halls, where I was met by the rector, who appeared to have stepped directly out of a David Lean movie and was very dramatic. As he took me into the hall, he said: “There will be about 4,000 people in the hall but of course no women”. I looked slightly surprised and he said: “They are watching on closed-circuit television from a separate campus 25 kilometres away”. I said: “Will they be able to ask questions?”. “Oh yes,” he said, “and they assuredly will”. So they did, and their questions were among the best and sharpest. The women are involved in the university, mainly as medical students, and it is in the medical field that they are able to study alongside men.

I recount that experience because, when we talk about the underrepresentation of women in certain sectors, we tend to think of barriers that are sometimes difficult to define and, for that reason, somewhat difficult to eradicate. When you have a barrier that is as physical and obvious as the one that I have just described, in a sense the problem is more obvious and the challenge more manageable. In Britain barriers to women realising their full potential are much less obvious and therefore harder to eradicate fully. I shall focus on two aspects: first, underrepresentation in the sciences at university level and in subsequent careers and, secondly, underrepresentation at board level, especially membership of executive committees.

First, on university and career levels, the Women’s Business Council, which has been referred to several times in this debate, in its very good report last June, Maximising Women’s Contribution to Future Economic Growth, shows quite conclusively that while girls outperform boys at GCSE and A-level, and the gap may be widening, when it comes to university places women take up only 13% of engineering places, 18% of technology places and 22% of mathematics places, while the figures are 89% for nursing, 85% for educational studies, 73% for linguistics and classics and 72% for language and literature. We know that there are a number of reasons why this is the case, and that they are interconnected.

Later today I shall be doing an interview for a webcast with Professor Dame Ann Dowling. Hers is a remarkable career. She is a non-executive director with BP, she heads up the engineering faculty at Cambridge University, now the university’s largest faculty, and she has recently been elected—the first woman so to be—as president of the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK. She publicly condemns the fact that fewer than 8% of UK engineers are women and that so few women actually study engineering. She sees this bald single fact as “stark”, “terrible” and a huge loss of talent. Light-heartedly, she urges parents to buy Lego for their daughters and to encourage them to mend bicycles and to get mucky. Much more seriously, though, she says that one of the problems is an A-level system that allows young people to ditch maths and science at 16. The failure to take the opportunity at university level, and subsequently in careers, will be affected by role models, and I think that Ann Dowling is an important role model for young women in this area. She has had, and continues to have, a brilliant career.

In her report for the Women’s Business Council, Ruby McGregor-Smith points out the inadequacy of careers advice to girls at schools as being another important factor—they are simply not well informed about the opportunity that exists for the sort of career that Ann Dowling has had. The Ofsted report on careers advice is very important; it urges government and business to encourage girls into STEM subjects and careers. I ask my friends on the Front Bench what the Government really intend to do to take forward rapidly the priorities that emerged from the Ofsted study.

What actually can be done? Let us look at a few of the aspects of this issue. Unless the UK brings more women into work, into STEM careers and into the boardroom, it is calculated that it could forgo 10% of GDP growth by 2030. This really must not happen. The 30% Club, to which I belong, calculates that any man starting work at a FTSE 100 company is 4.5 times more likely to reach the level of being an executive than any woman. Currently only 20% of FTSE 100 boards have female board members. More tellingly and, I believe, more importantly, only 70% have female executive directors and only four have female CEOs.

My right honourable friend in the other place, Vince Cable, urges now that we should really look at all-women shortlists for boards, and reference has been made to that proposal already in this debate. As we all know, there are problems with such a course. Among other things, the Equality and Human Rights Commission would have to advise on the legality of such shortlists. I do not know what General de Gaulle’s position was on female equality, but he was famous for saying frequently that the French, in choosing between liberté, égalité and fraternité, have an instinct always to go for égalité. To achieve that égalité sometimes involves a changing balance with liberté. In charting the way forward and realising the potential contribution of women to the UK economy, we will need to consider that balance between, if you like, the volume of liberté and the power of égalité. What is clear is that for us as a nation and as an economy, the present underrepresentation of women in the workforce and in the boardroom must not continue. It is in fact deeply damaging and, essentially, intolerable.

We may be dealing with attitudes that are absolutely intractable. The phrase has been used that many of the attitudes that lie behind this are “hard-wired” into both genders. There was a little illustration of this the other day with Chancellor Merkel, who has already been referred to today as a role model—indeed she is; what an extraordinary political career and achievement—as the phrase that is used to describe her is “Übermutter”. It has never occurred to anyone to describe her as an “Überfrau”. Now there is a role model for you.

Whether it is hard-wired or not, how deeply set some of the attitudes are may be an acceptance of things too easily by many women and girls and an inability to see things as they are by far too many men. The fact is that this is unfinished business. If we as a country are to be as competitive as we have to be, this is something that has to be addressed and changed.

14:00

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on making it possible for this annual debate to be in government time in this important centenary year of the start of the First Great War. This is the year we begin a four-year commemoration which will highlight many of its shocking and horrific events. I hope noble Lords will forgive me as I take a moment to look at what this meant for women and how it altered the status of women for ever.

My earliest memory of my family and other families is of the sheer number of women in the world. Of course, in my family I had my mother, my very special mentor and most loyal supporter, but there were many more women who were either widowed or unmarried. I think that most families had maiden aunts and maiden great aunts; I certainly had two. The 1914 war left a generation of young women who never married, who were sometimes referred to by the appalling term “surplus women”. The scale of the war meant that the number of young men had been decimated and as a result there were just not enough chaps to go round.

These were the times when very little paid work was available for women and voluntary work was only for the rich. Single women often had to take on roles in domestic service just to get by. My mother, for example, had gained secretarial qualifications, but just as she thought that she would be able to put them to use in 1918, her father told her there was no way that she should even contemplate finding paid employment as all available jobs should be offered only to the returning troops. In many instances, contracts of employment during World War One had been based on collective agreements between trade unions and employers that decreed that women would be employed only for the duration of the war.

Marriage for my mother later meant, of course, that there was no possibility, either within the tax system or social convention, of being employed. For single women, the outlook was bleak. Some remained at their childhood home and ended their lives as unpaid carers to elderly parents. Others took on roles as housekeepers or companions to elderly, usually difficult, ladies, whose demands were inflexible and harsh but at least that provided a roof over their heads. It was not a time to be a surplus woman.

My father went through the First World War spending most of the years in the trenches or in a military hospital. He entered the war as a fit young man, and five or so years later emerged described as C3—the lowest grade of fitness—having had three bouts of rheumatic fever. He went on to serve in Ireland, but was forced to leave because his employers refused to hold his position any longer. The Army insisted on a form of medical treatment before discharge but, as he was under such pressure from his employers, he felt unable to accept it. The result was that when he died from heart-related disease, I was 10 years old, my brother was 15 and my mother was not entitled to any form of pension for his military service. It was certainly no time to be a widow.

My father never spoke of the horrors and tragedies he witnessed, so my mother was not able to pass on to us any of his experiences or the awful conditions in which the troops who survived had lived. As regiments were wiped out, together with his bouts of illness, he went from regiment to regiment. I can only be grateful that he survived to have a happy, but short, marriage and to give me a few years of love and real affection.

The war as it progressed opened unthought-of opportunities for many women. Between 1914 and 1918, an estimated 2 million women replaced men in employment, an increase in the proportion of women in total employment from 24% in July 1914 to 37% by November 1918. These women kept the home front firing by providing weapons from munitions factories and food through working the land. It was not easy, but these women enjoyed the sense of freedom and independence that this gave them.

When the armistice eventually came, many of these women did not relish a return to the home. This emancipation of women during the war had given them the impetus to start fighting for real equality. Women started truly to educate themselves, seeking more independence from husbands, fathers and families. Indeed in 1918, after much campaigning and violence by such doughty fighters as Emmeline Pankhurst, the vote was awarded to women over the age of 30 who owned property and this, thankfully, was extended 10 years later to universal suffrage.

It is hard to believe that, in spite of opportunities for women during the 1914-18 war, only two, outside domestic service, were employed in the House of Lords by 1918, and they were in the Library. Believe it or not, the number had increased to only five by the end of the Second World War in 1945, which can hardly be thought of as progress. Today the figure stands at 224 women out of a total of 587 employees.

What changes we have seen in the opportunities for women since the unsatisfying and inhibiting lives they led in 1914. Happily, we are living in an age when if they have the expertise, the determination and, best of all, a supportive family, women can hope to achieve much of their dreams. Families are as important today as they were in 1914, and long may they continue to be so. Of course there is much to do, but I am thankful that I am alive today and not in those dark, miserable days which left not only an untapped, precious resource for this country, but many women unfulfilled and depressed. We should not forget.

14:07

Baroness Howells of St Davids (Lab): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on creating the opportunity to debate today women’s contribution to economic life and on her presentation of the subject since the Equality Act.

Listening to the many speakers before me, I was forced to recall the names of those who also went before, such as Harriet Tubman, the underground railroad fighter, and Rosa Parks, who went from the back of the bus to the forefront of the American consciousness, causing the breakdown of the power of enslavement. We trust that the work of these women will never be forgotten because they were the cornerstone at that time of building a strong foundation without boundaries and bearing witness through self-expression in poetry, music, art and, most of all, their writings. These formidable women include Sojourner Truth, who exclaimed, “Ain’t I a woman too?”. I dare today to bring to the attention of the House those who I have identified as forerunners in the struggle to combat the double discrimination of gender and race.

Being a woman and black is challenging. The struggle for women in their many roles, as mothers, grandmothers, aunts and sisters, is with us today. Black women continue to use their talents, teaching and political will to contribute towards the building of a better world. Despite facing double discrimination, they have striven to gain a place in the technological world and continue to seek to prevent technology replacing human and social values. As women, however unkind the insults—and there are many—they continue to be in the orchestra of life. For they recognise that every woman, black and white, has an instrument to play in the struggles of today.

Today in Britain, we mark over 100 years of the women’s day movement. However, historians and other interested parties can cite the earliest women’s day activities six years prior, in the USA, and the first formal conference taking place in Copenhagen in 1910, when over 1 million marked the IWD—as it became known—in Austria, Denmark and Germany. In 1914, for the first time, the IWD meeting was held on 8 March, a Sunday—the day on which most women were able to dispense with their housework. Back then, women used the occasion to demand the right to vote, the end of sexual discrimination in the workplace, and the right to hold a position of public office. We ask ourselves, 100 years on, what has changed. Some might say, “Two out of three can’t be bad”. Although I continually hear the phrase, “It’s a man’s world”, I am heartened that, during my lifetime, there has been a quantum leap in the roles that women play in every strata of society. Yes, we need more.

I will cite the names of some role models, although I am sure that they have been mentioned before: Christine Lagarde, Angela Merkel, Dilma Rousseff, Joyce Banda, Oprah Winfrey, JK Rowling, Malala Yousafzai and Indra Nooyi. They are real role models, and they continue to guide others. In that group, there are only two black women. These names, and many more, will still produce the same answer as to the far-reaching global impact that women are making in society today, which we had hoped for but I feel sure had not imagined when the International Women’s Day was in its genesis.

Closer to home, I have seen huge strides taken by women within my own community. It was not so long ago when the first and second generation of African and Caribbean heritage took on the saying, “Necessity is the mother of invention”. They began, as a defence against prejudice, to start their own businesses in this country. Some of them suffered criminal attacks on their businesses. They continued to try in every walk of life. They were most successful in setting up cottage industries in the beauty industry, especially in hairdressing. You may not see them much on the high street, but they are thriving and bringing their perceptions to the wider community. Anyone looking with my eyes will see that the white community copies and takes note of what they are doing. They are beavering to become self-sufficient. They have been at the forefront of some of the new hairstyles. They have gone into manufacturing the products needed for hair care, and have taken steps in producing all the beauty products needed, despite lack of funds. They have also been amazing in the health service.

When the late Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister and encouraged people to set up businesses, the women in the black community came together and set up their own care homes. Today, some of them still exist, but they have different stories to tell. You will find that black women have entered the medical, legal, accounting, arts and science arenas, and also politics. I remind noble Lords—I hope your Lordships have not forgotten her—of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordinator. She became the first black woman to sit in the Cabinet of the United Kingdom and, later, the Leader of this House. While Leader, she invited me into her office to show me a letter which she had received. Because the author is no longer with us—she has died—I will not name her, but in that letter she said that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, was a disgrace to this House. Some of your Lordships may have seen the letter, because I was so appalled that I advised her to frame it and pop it on her desk. There is also my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, who became Attorney-General. Those two women are high fliers and role models for the whole community.

Today, I ask us to remember together that being black does not prevent you from being a woman. Our greatest problems are with women; I hate to say this, but it is true. Where there are woman head teachers, teachers complain about the treatment they receive. I ask us to keep the ideals of International Women’s Day in our hearts and in our practices. Let us celebrate those women who have excelled, regardless of race or creed. Most importantly, I call on men and women—on all of us—to help to foster and support the hopes and dreams of a young girl, a daughter, a granddaughter, a niece or a neighbour. We heard earlier that both world wars robbed us of our men. We do not know who we will need tomorrow.

The legacy of those women in 1914 will stay bright and burning way beyond 2014, with your Lordships’ help. I am sure that I have brought a sombre note to this Chamber. That is not intentional, but I find that black women are contributing much to society and they are never recognised. I end by asking the Minister to share with us the Government’s plans for ensuring that there is growth for all women, black and white, to take their place as equal partners in tomorrow’s world.

14:19

[Lord Smith of Clifton (LD)]

My Lords, I share with other Members of your Lordships’ House the belief that this is a vital debate, and it is excellent that it has now become an annually established feature of our parliamentary diary. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Palumbo on making his maiden speech and on its quality.

I also thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady Northover, for introducing this debate, but I make no apologies for returning to a theme which I have persistently raised over the years and to which many Members of your Lordships’ House have already referred—namely the underrepresentation of women in both UK business and UK political life. I persist with this because in both areas the situation is not good. In this debate some noble Lords have made complacent speeches indicating that some progress has been made, which they warmly welcomed. Of course we warmly welcome it, but the fact is that it is not fast enough.

The 2011 Davies report, which noble Lords have mentioned, recommended that the proportion of women directors should reach 25% by 2015. Although that goal is modest enough, it is going in the right direction. However, the report was far too timid in suggesting how the target should be achieved, as there was to be no compulsion. When Davies reported, as other noble Lords have said, 12.5% of directors on FTSE 100 boards were women, almost all of whom were non-executives. Three chief executive officers were women. The record of FTSE 250 companies was, and remains, very much worse.

At present only four women chief executives head up FTSE 100 firms, and only one chairs a board. There has been some increase in the number of women directors but they have largely been non-executives, and their numbers still fall far short of the Davies target. Moreover, grade for grade, senior women are paid far less than their male counterparts. The Chartered Management Institute found that, in 2012-13, male directors received average bonuses of nearly £64,000, while female directors got £36,000. Not surprisingly, male directors’ pay rose by 5.3%, and female directors’ by a meagre 1.1%. That was reported in the Guardian on 20 August 2013.

Progress will not be made until Norwegian-type quotas are imposed—although many are opposed to them, particularly distinguished women who have broken through the glass ceiling and reject quotas for others because of their own ability. One way or another, quotas are coming. Lloyds Bank is to increase by 1,000 the number of jobs for women in its top tier of management. John Cridland, director-general of the CBI, has urged his member firms to use targets. The current Lord Mayor of London, Fiona Woolf, has made this a particular issue, as has been mentioned.

Quotas work not just in Norway but in the UK. I always raise the example of the imposition of quotas, following the Patten report, to rebalance the recruitment between Catholics and Protestants into the police force in Northern Ireland. That was achieved well before the 10-year target period. However, it also had a very beneficial if unintended result—that the proportion of women recruited rose from 12.45% in 2001 to nearly 27% by 2011. I have cited that in aid on four occasions in this House, asking Ministers if, in winding, they would comment. Commendably, there was an equal gender balance of two male Ministers and two female. Equality was maintained, furthermore, as none of them responded to me when winding.

I pursued the matter in writing. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, belatedly replied, confirming the Northern Ireland figures, but she added that other factors may have contributed to the increase in women’s recruitment and cited the 2004 and 2011 gender action plans in Northern Ireland. That is all to the good, as it only adds to the argument for the need for positive and robust action. Her reply in fact confirmed and did not negate the case that I was making.

Last year, after the Queen’s Speech, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, gave me a more considered reply, on 11 June, for which I was grateful. He quoted the 2013 Cranfield study which said that FTSE 100 firms were on a trajectory to reach the 25% target by 2015 and the 34% one by 2020. Since then doubts have been raised by PricewaterhouseCoopers, in its audit, about whether this progress will be maintained. It may well be that this country will slip down still further in the international league among developed economies.

I turn to my second point, about politics. I had also asked the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, if the Davies target applied to the Cabinet. He replied:

“Your second question was when the target of 25% women on the boards of listed companies would apply to Cabinet membership. I can confirm there are no plans to introduce any such target”.

Well, quite. Women Cabinet membership has fallen since 2010, and to add insult to injury, last week’s Sunday Times reported that female Ministers, including some in the Cabinet, have smaller offices than their male counterparts. Average office size is 657 square feet; the average for men is 715, and for women 482. That is a small but telling point.

All three main parties are bad at promoting gender equality. The least bad is Labour, thanks largely to the indefatigable crusade of its deputy leader, Harriet Harman MP. All-women lists for the selection of parliamentary candidates—that is, quotas—have been a big help in that regard; but as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, there is still some way to go. The Tory record is very bad, with four of its 2010 intake of women MPs not restanding. My own party’s record is even worse, I regret to say, with too few women MPs.

It is no wonder that there was such a stark contrast between the coalition Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench: pale and male on the former, and a much better gender balance on the latter, as recent TV broadcasts and press photos revealed. The coalition has also reduced by half the number of women Permanent Secretaries since 2010. It is clear that the battle for gender equality will not be won on the playing fields of Eton, or even those of Westminster School.

Can my noble friend say, in winding, if she agrees with me that gender imbalance in business life must continue to be robustly addressed if the Davies targets are to be achieved—if necessary, as our honourable friend Dr Vince Cable has said, by the introduction of targets? Further, does she also agree that the Cabinet should lead by example and in the next reshuffle aim at 25% female representation? It is not likely to happen, but we jolly well should try.

14:19

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Northover on leading the debate. She is a role model herself, both in what she has done for the development of her party, and as a working mother.

My area of focus today is women’s contribution to the UK economy. I will start with some general principles. I suspect that the first will command general agreement. No one should be excluded from achieving their ambition at work just because they are female. That is, as it were, the overarching principle.

My second point is that we should not be surprised if women choose to operate in some spheres more than others. The Library circulated figures showing the distribution of the male and female workforces between sectors. These showed females featuring especially strongly in health, education and real estate. The figures may reflect some lingering results of past discrimination, but do not expect any great change in future. Women are not identical to men and do not need to have identical ambitions.

My third principle is less commonly accepted. Not all women have to be out at work. Children need love and attention, and stay-at-home mothers provide these needs often making an enormous contribution elsewhere, for example to the voluntary sector—everything from organising school events to raising money for good causes.

My fourth principle, perhaps the most contentious, is that if you allow for the proportion of women who do not want to work full time, it would be unwise to expect the numbers of women at the top to be 50% in every sector. The key thing is that women should have the opportunity to get on. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes on his cheering illustrations of what can be done by providing opportunities. I suggest that speakers in debates such as this one would do well to heed such principles, some of which are frequently ignored.

I welcome the steps that government and Parliament are taking to help women—and I entirely support the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, whom I look forward to hearing from.

I now turn now to some more specific issues. The Government are right to encourage flexible working and make it both possible and economic for women who want to be in the workplace to be there while they bring up their children. I am very pleased that our forthcoming reforms will allow both parents to share up to a year’s leave to look after their newborn children. The changes will allow fathers to play a greater role in raising their children and help mothers to return to work at a time that is right. We are also increasing childcare support to ensure that parents can work. The Government are investing an extra £200 million of support for families on low incomes. In addition, the tax-free childcare scheme will contribute 20% of working parents’ childcare for parents not receiving universal credit, as announced in March. Other support is also available.

Some of your Lordships will know of my passion for enterprise and for encouraging small business. I have spoken before about the array of support that this Government are giving our 4.9 million small businesses, such as the £2,000 off national insurance that will boost jobs from next month and the increase in rates relief for small businesses. All this will help the growing number of women running and playing a pivotal role in such businesses. Less well known is the childcare business grants scheme. If a person intends to set up a new childcare business, they can get a small grant to help with the costs of getting trained and registered, to access a business mentor for support and advice on starting up a business, and to access business advice on the childcare sector. All this encouragement of family-friendly enterprise is to be commended. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville has already said, the Federation of Small Businesses has reported an encouraging trend, with nearly half of businesses created in the last two years in retail, hotels and catering being primarily owned by women.

Our economic recovery is fuelling growth and innovation, and it is exciting to see the contribution of women entrepreneurs. But we also need to give women the opportunity to contribute to the workforce in middle life and even into their 60s. This is an issue about which I feel especially keenly. I have been struck as a new Peer both by the contribution women Members make in all parts of the House and how often they demonstrate slightly different strengths and skills. This House has a key role in scrutinising and revising legislation. Women are very good at thinking about the practical application of new rules and looking at them through consumers’, administrators’ or business eyes. I have been trying to do just this during our debates on the Water Bill.

When I go on radio or TV to talk about the role of women, I am asked about quotas and discrimination and what can be done to achieve equality in the workplace. Attention is focused on the perceived need for high-profile female figures in the Cabinet, running top companies or running the BBC. This is an obsession of the chattering classes. Elite women, many present in this House, who might fill such roles, can usually look after themselves to a great extent. Very little attention is given in these interviews to the needs of the great majority of working women, some of whom will provide the pipeline for top roles in future. These women want help with finding opportunities for a better life and to be able to combine a family and the chance to have a successful career. They want to contribute better to the UK economy and to be better, happier citizens and parents. So the framework for maternity leave and flexible working is important and represents a substantial and important investment by the Government. The expansion of pre-school education is another huge and important investment. But women also want good jobs to go to, a decent boss and to be able to get on. Employers, large and small, know that their female colleagues are a skilled and loyal resource. Women are also the majority of customers in many consumer-facing businesses, so have relevant insights for success.

In my own career in the Civil Service and then for over 15 years as an executive at Tesco, a good retail employer, I found four things that worked well. First, it is important to make a point of including female staff in training and development on an equal basis, even if special arrangements have to be made. Mentoring has a place, and role models, as so many noble Lords have said. In an organisation of any size, leadership training is especially important as women are often very good managers, but sometimes lack confidence. Secondly, this understandable lack of confidence is one of the biggest barriers to female advancement. Men think they are ready for the next challenge a year before they are ready, women a year too late. Interestingly, I have also found that women are also less aggressive about seeking pay rises, which may partly explain the 10% pay gap among full-time employees highlighted by the Library note.

For these reasons, women can also benefit disproportionately from good management—clear objectives, appraisal, feedback and, most important of all, encouragement and praise for good work done. Focusing systematically on the female pipeline in a business or agency and ensuring that you give women core jobs in the business, and not just in female-friendly divisions such as HR or marketing, so that they develop a skills base for top jobs, is also vital—like the director of sport we heard about in London 2012.

Since change takes time, it is worth looking back a bit to my own experience in steering the Food Safety Act 1990 through this House. All three lead officials were women, and so were the Ministers, including my noble friend Lady Trumpington, still here in her 90s, demonstrating brilliant development of the female talent pipeline by the party. I have found female networks helpful in establishing some surprising connections and friendships and showing the breadth of knowledge needed for advancement. I remember the Tesco women directors in Asia meeting in Shanghai, 50 of us in total and only two of us, myself and the Irish-born commercial director from Thailand, of non-Asian origin. Networks are also vital for the exchange of good practice, and I found managing children was the most popular topic for best practice exchange. I used to share my wisdom on juggling my domestic arrangements, which was a cause of great hilarity. News bulletins can keep you in touch when you are on maternity leave. Without them, you miss out completely as businesses change.

Such things are also very easy in our digital age—and that brings me on to my final point. The workplace has changed a great deal with the advent of new technology. I remember having to take my children into Downing Street as I had a crisis on a Sunday and external e-mail barely existed in the 1990s. Now parents can bathe their babies and settle down on their tablets to complete their urgent work. That is a very helpful change.

Obviously, we need to make sure that new technology provides new flexibility and does not become a new form of slavery, on the go 20 hours a day. I have a friend who is a senior City lawyer. She has agreed to leave her BlackBerry behind when she goes on holiday with her family. The internet, especially when we all have broadband—a day that I hope will arrive very soon—is changing everything: the workplace, our relationships, who wins in business and, of course, most important of all, the way our own children learn and play.

I do believe that women make an enormous contribution to the UK economy. However, in closing, I wish to touch on an aspect of good management practice, which is to set criteria and deadlines for success. Accordingly, I look forward to the day when progress has been such that there is no need for a debate on the role of women in our economy, and I hope that we get there soon.

14:40

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Royall spoke about looking forward to speaking to her grandchildren. I have reached the ripe old age where my grandchildren ask me what the biggest change is that I have seen during my life. When I compare the life of my mother with that of my daughter and granddaughters, I have little hesitation in saying, “The contribution of women”. But although this change has been enormous, there is still a long way to go. It is in the spirit of discussing what is yet to be done that I, too, welcome this women’s day debate. Most of my career has been in business and it is here that there is much to do, and much benefit to gain, as many have pointed out. I think that this is captured in the United Nations theme for this year’s International Women’s Day—“Equality for women is progress for all”.

Some have tried to show that companies with women on the board produce better financial results. I have always been rather sceptical of this because so many other factors affect the financial results of a business. It is getting the combination right that matters. Businesses with a greater gender diversity reflect society, and a good business serves society. Perhaps this is why greater gender diversity benefits the financial results of these businesses. It is this attitude of serving society that enables businesses to embrace diversity rather than just help women to fit into a male-dominated culture. As others have said, men, too, benefit from flexible working hours and spending time with their families. Embracing this culture of diversity enables women to flourish, and their flourishing talents, knowledge, skills and abilities benefit the company and the nation.

So how do you do this? For the answer I am grateful to the Chartered Management Institute for its Women in Management paper. As did the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, the paper points out that this issue is not just about women on boards; it concerns women in all parts of a business. It is about unblocking the career pipeline and allowing women’s talents to flourish. As my noble friend Lady Prosser said, it is not just a matter of a glass ceiling that has to be broken; it is getting round an obstacle course—barriers, as the Minister put it. Enabling women to overcome this obstacle course and these barriers is the mark of a business that truly embraces diversity.

Like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo—I welcome his maiden speech—I support employers who embrace flexible working for men and women. They understand that results are more important than merely being present. This means creating supportive networks and mentoring opportunities for female managers and providing them with management training and qualifications throughout their careers—for instance, providing them with training and career development when they are in their 40s, when there is less family pressure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, pointed out.

Women’s ambitions and the way they get results can differ from men’s. For example, many women prefer to work in transformation and interactive management. They work better in less hierarchical businesses. This may mean challenging corporate cultures. A company that believes in diversity will understand this and provide mentoring support for this kind of career development. This may mean a more varied career structure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, indicated, and redefining workplace cultures, but being true to yourself and redefining success is the hallmark of many of today’s successful businesses. The Government have recognised this. In January this year, ACAS published a guide to handling requests to work flexibly in a reasonable manner—a guide designed to help employers and employees with their statutory rights regarding flexible working. WISE—Women into Science and Engineering—mentors women entering science and technology in all of this. The Women of Influence initiative also supports female scientists in this way. This flexibility is invaluable.

Many have spoken of role models. An interesting bit of research by the Chartered Management Institute looks at the importance of role models. We need to replace the tired old role models, many of them men, with women such as Karren Brady or the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who is in her place. There is a lack of female role models, not only in the public eye but also in the workplace. Part of management training is for line managers to set a good example and be a good role model in their wider organisation. After all, this is how you engage people and improve their performance. In this regard, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said about engineering role models, I congratulate the University of Sheffield, which has built a magnificent new building for its graduate school of engineering and named it after Pam Liversidge, one of the world’s leading female engineers and the first woman to be president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers—a wonderful role model indeed.

An important part of embracing gender diversity is to close the gender pay gap. The Office for National Statistics tells us that in full-time work the gender pay gap increased from 9.5% in 2012 to 10% in 2013. Others—my noble friend Lady Prosser quoted Oxfam in this regard—put the figure as high as 19%. Whoever is right, the gap is there. It would be very helpful if the Government could give us the official figures, as there is so much dispute over them.

The Chartered Management Institute tells us that the average bonus given to male directors was double the average given to women, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out. Some say that this is due to women pursuing a different career path. Others point out that big bonuses encourage the short-term interests of managers rather than the long-term interests of the business. The gap is less pronounced at lower levels because women are the majority of the workforce at entry level, but they lose out on top positions and top pay. It seems to me that the way to tackle this is to measure and report on equality of pay and the percentage of women and men at junior, middle and senior levels. Some organisations may want to set targets to close these gaps. Yes, there is a useful joint government and business-led initiative called Think, Act, Report, which encourages employers to do this. It is designed to help companies to consider gender equality in a systematic way on issues such as recruitment, retention, promotion and pay. I hope that the Government will do more to publicise this scheme and encourage all employers to use it, and perhaps even name and shame those who do not.

Does the Minister agree that companies now face a financial imperative to hang on to women who are coming into the workforce? Some do so at graduate level and many are highly qualified, but many leave in their 30s because the workplace culture has been developed and designed by men and does not work for women. What a waste, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, put it. That is why it is becoming an economic imperative to make sure that women remain in the talent pipeline. We should do so by providing ways around the barriers—ways that are all part of a culture of gender diversity. That is yet another reason why gender diversity is a feature of a successful business.

14:51

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking everyone who has spoken for a fascinating and invigorating debate. We also listened to an excellent maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo of Southwark.

While other noble Lords were listening to the interesting speech to Parliament of Angela Merkel—another of our icons—I was at a reception at Clarence House given for WOW by the Duchess of Cornwall at the start of the 2014 Women of the World festival, being held this year at London’s South Bank. One of those present was Nimco Ali, an FGM victim, and many noble Lords will have seen her conversation with the Duchess reported in last Friday’s press. The Duchess has herself been appalled by this horrendous practice taking place in this country. Apparently, over time, some 66,000 girls have already been forced to have this illegal operation performed on them.

The good news is that, when combined with the strong views already expressed by your Lordships in today’s Question on FMG, the recent promise by Michael Gove to ensure that in future, schools, teachers and governors—all those responsible—will ensure that preventing FGM taking place on their pupils becomes a top priority. This should mean that this illegal practice will, at the very least, decrease considerably over the next few years.

I began begun my comments in this International Women’s Day debate with the example of FGM because if Britain can set an example here, after many years of brushing the issue under the carpet, it may indeed be a vital lead that other countries, too, may wish to follow—albeit perhaps not immediately in some cases. That is why I particularly want to congratulate the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, not just on securing this important debate today but on her success in broadening its title to include women’s contribution to economic life not just in the UK but worldwide.

Without doubt, one of the best initiatives was the Davies report, Women on Boards, published in February 2011. In 2010, when the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was asked to lead this strategy, women made up just 10.5% of board members on FTSE 100 companies, and 6.7% of those in FTSE 250 companies. Although, as the noble Lord himself says, there is obviously still a long way to go—not least, as other noble Lords have mentioned, because the vast majority of appointments were non-executive board members—by 2013, women accounted for 17.3% of board members at FTSE 100 companies, and 13.2% of board members of FTSE 250 companies. That represented an overall increase of 50%. The important route whereby this success is being achieved is for companies involved in this project to recruit and nurture female as well as male executive talent and ensure that they have adequate mentoring support en route to top-level jobs. The added requirement is that companies report yearly on the success of their policies, which then forms the basis of the yearly published progress report from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. It is that yearly basis that is so important. Thus everyone can see exactly what success is being achieved. My hope is that success here may well prove to be an incentive to other countries to follow—not necessarily by following an identical path but in ways that suit their particular circumstances.

Of course, earlier action in Britain is also needed to achieve our own targets, which again may prove to be a useful example for others to follow, not least during our children’s education. One such area is crucial—careers advice, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords. Sadly, a recent Ofsted report has indicated that considerable improvement is indeed needed here. Some time ago, in 1975, in my role as the first deputy chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, one of my major concerns was the advice that girls were getting, which was limited to, for example, hairdressing and secretarial careers—the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, mentioned this area—rather than the wider careers advice that boys would get. I suspect that there is still more than an element of that attitude in the advice that girls are getting today. Certainly, for both sexes, careers advice should be based on the individual child’s abilities and aptitude. Equally, other aspects are important, too, such as what local job opportunities exist and the range of better-paid jobs that are needed in today’s environment. Within a school’s structure itself, one definite improvement would be to have more local employers appointed as school governors. Also, given that not all teachers are necessarily well informed about local job opportunities, visits to different kinds of businesses and employers should be part of every school’s curriculum.

The third and last issue that I want to address is flexible working, which has already been mentioned by other noble Lords. I emphasise that what is still needed here is for these opportunities to be available equally—I stress, equally—for men as for women. Again, this may be useful for other countries to consider. A much more active campaign is now needed for two important reasons. The first is because men are taking and enjoying a far more active role as fathers, which of course also means that mothers have greater freedom to return to work. The second reason is the new opportunities created by the amazing technological changes in communications, which has also been touched on in this debate. Nearly all jobs can now be organised flexibly. To illustrate the situation, if we need to get in touch with, say, a plumber, we all know that the person answering our phone call will almost certainly be living on another continent and using a mobile phone.

So if UK employers, large and small—and I suspect that the small employers are already among the most pioneering here—were to accept this changed situation, decide which were the very few roles that could not be worked flexibly and reorganise the rest on a flexible basis, not only would this better suit modern family lives but it would cut employers’ costs, as less office space would be needed, with much of the business done at home or on the move using mobile phones. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government have any plans to encourage this.

Again, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate. I very much look forward to listening to the remaining speeches and to hearing what gems we can expect from the Government in the future.

15:00

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, we often talk about it being a privilege to speak in these debates but never has it been more genuinely so than today. We have heard some exceptional speeches, and I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Holmes. I was not alone in the Chamber in listening absolutely raptly but I also had a tear in my eye.

I was not going to mention politics—or at least the representation of women in Parliament today—but I have been name-checked more than once, and rather generously, in this debate and I have to say that it is not me who has done the work; it is those who step up to the plate and put themselves forward. All I can do is provide encouragement and support in my own party. Here, I pay tribute to others in my party who have come before me, including the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who has just spoken. She was an earlier pioneer in this field, as were my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Seccombe. Talking about the pipeline, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe did earlier, I hope that I am not spoiling her chances but I happen to know that the granddaughter of my noble friend Lady Seccombe is in our pipeline and I wish her much success in her journey.

I was slightly stung by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, picking on my party. We should pay tribute to the fact that we went from 17 to 49 women MPs at the last election. It is true that four of them have announced that they are retiring for various reasons, but that is virtually the same proportion as applies to the Liberal Democrats and pretty much the same as applies to the Labour Party. This is all something that the APPG for Women in Parliament needs to look at—not only with a view to making politics a more attractive career for women but looking at retention as well.

I end this little section by saying, as I always do, that if any women are watching, listening to or reading this debate and they think they might be interested in a career in politics—with any party but particularly with the Conservative Party—please find your way to me. It is not difficult and I will respond immediately to any e-mail or call.

Since I made my maiden speech in a debate on this subject three years ago, I have spoken often on related subjects. In preparation for this debate, I reflected again on whether the glass is half full or half empty, and whether it is a little fuller today than it was when I made that first speech in this Chamber three years ago. I think that the answer is that it is like the curate’s egg: good in parts.

To put the debate in context, the past 50 or 60 years have seen a remarkable phase of economic growth both in this country and across the world. Four of the reasons for this are the growth in free trade, the introduction of free-market models by countries in the Far East, the introduction of IT into the economy and, of particular relevance today, the introduction of the female half of the human population into the labour force of developed countries. This has been an event of enormous social consequence and also enormous economic importance, so, from that base, let us have a look at where we are now.

Businesses with diverse workforces which harness and retain the capabilities of women as well as men are stronger performers and are better attuned to their client and customer base. Statistics show that if women were represented equally in the workforce, the UK could increase GDP by 10% by 2030. The next generation of women must feel that all areas of our economy are accessible to them and they must grow up believing that they can reach their full potential. The Inspiring the Future programme, supported by both Miriam Clegg and Samantha Cameron, successful businesswomen in their own right, together with other programmes such as Speakers for Schools, are doing good work in this area. As Ruby McGregor-Smith, chief executive of Mitie and a great business role model, said,

“by creating opportunity for all, raising aspirations and enabling people to maximise their talents, we will deliver stronger economic growth”.

Women already in business have an important role to play. As we have discussed, active female role models evidence the positive impact of women in business. We have many women in this House and a number speaking today who provide that role model, and I have been very impressed listening to their perspective.

Incidentally, when I looked at the speakers list for today, I was a bit disappointed that there were not more men on it. We very much welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, in his maiden speech, and I have to say that the other six noble Lords have more than made up in quality for the lack of quantity. The truth is that we all know that, without buy-in and support from men, things change very much more slowly.

Younger women need role models, as has been said, and the business community as a whole needs to encourage women at every level. There are many fine examples of best practice. Liz Bingham, Ernst & Young’s managing partner, says:

“We need senior women in business to lift as they climb and to encourage young female talent up through their organisations”.

Here, as well as paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who has been mentioned by many others, I pay tribute to Helena Morrissey and others active in the 30% Club, who are having a major impact with their very effective and high-profile campaign.

We have heard a bit about entrepreneurship, which is becoming increasingly popular with young people who are attracted to the idea of working for themselves, and there are encouraging figures on start-ups. However, the gender gap is here, too, as my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville pointed out. If women were setting up and running new businesses at the same rate as men, we could have an extra 1 million female entrepreneurs, but they are only half as likely as men to take this opportunity. So what are the barriers and how can women be supported to overcome them? Financial institutions should ensure that their services are better marketed for women. Schools and business organisations should work together to ensure that students, and indeed mature women returners, know that starting their own business is a viable option and they should be well supported with advice through the process.

Entrepreneurship is also increasingly a popular option for women in the developing world. The flexibility allows women with limited transport options and obligations keeping them at home to earn a living with all the knock-on benefits. One entrepreneur I want to tell your Lordships about today is Zada, a 50 year-old widow from rural Afghanistan. She runs a small business making jewellery by hand. As a woman, she was not allowed to make the decision to start a business herself. She had to get permission from the men in her life—her adult sons—to attend a course at the Indian Institute of Gems & Jewellery. I declare an interest as Zada was trained and supported by Future Brilliance, of which I am a trustee.

Zada, who is unable to read or write because of Afghanistan’s limited schooling opportunities, is a pioneer in this new scheme, creating a network of skilled Afghan artisans who will set up businesses and spread their knowledge when Afghan security is handed back to its own Administration. The advantage is that these jewellery makers will be able to work from home. Zada will be able to expand her business and employ more women. Therefore, in terms of maximum return on capital employed, taking just this one woman and investing in her is potentially huge as far as the economy of her local village is concerned. Zada is an inspiration to the young women in her village, as Victoria Beckham, now a successful businesswoman herself, is to young women in the UK. Again, the power of a strong role model should not be underestimated.

Another major barrier to women entering the workforce in the developing world is lack of choice over their sexual and reproductive health and access to contraception. Nearly 15 years after the introduction of the MDGs, we are still way behind on some of the targets. On International Women’s Day on Saturday, 800 women will die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, 128 women will die from an unsafe abortion and 222 million women will still have an unmet need for family planning. If we continue at the current rate of expansion, it will take another 500 years for women in parts of western and central Africa to access the contraception they want. This is not only morally wrong but also has a massive economic impact.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Bill Cash and my noble friend Lord McColl, as well as NGOs and Ministers, including the noble Baroness responding to this debate, and supporters from every party, for steering the International Development (Gender Equality) Bill successfully through both Houses and on to the statute book earlier this week. This is a positive outcome for us all to celebrate, particularly the women and girls in the developing world for whom this legislation has the potential to be a real game changer.

Noble Lords have talked about violence against women here at home and internationally. It is another issue that prevents women from entering the workforce. The report published this week, and referred to earlier, from the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights confirmed that one in three women across the EU have experienced such violence. Worldwide, the figure is higher. Women living with the threat of physical and sexual violence will never reach their full potential. The financial consequences of violence against women are not just borne by the victims but felt by their communities and the economy as a whole. The cost to the UK economy caused by violence against women and girls has been calculated at £40 billion annually. While an economic argument should not be needed, it clearly makes financial sense to do what we can to prevent it.

I shall end on a word about the impact of austerity measures on women. It is important for us all, and for the Government, to acknowledge the fact that because many women are in low-paid and part-time jobs, and in the majority of cases have to manage a tight household budget in challenging circumstances, they have borne and continue to bear the brunt of the very difficult economic circumstances in which we as a country find ourselves. But these difficult decisions to get the economy back on track are there so that there will be jobs for their children, and our children, and so that they can look forward to a secure old age.

Women clearly can and do make a massive contribution to the UK economy and the global economy. This is not just an issue of women having a choice. Female participation in the UK workforce and across the world is a necessity, without which we will never achieve a successful or sustainable economy. With the focus of the Government, good business practice and engagement with educational institutions, we can ensure that all women are aware of their options and know their value.

15:12

[Baroness Nye (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for arranging this debate and for extending the nature of the debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on his maiden speech. Following the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, perhaps I may say, for political balance, that our door also is always open to any women listening to this debate. The theme for International Women’s Day this year is inspiring change and to celebrate the social, political and economic achievements of women. However, it is also necessary to focus attention on areas requiring further action. While positive gains have been made—we have heard a lot from noble Lords today—the world is still a very unequal place and women are still not achieving their full potential. This debate is about the contribution of women to economic life and I would like to concentrate on a group of young women in the UK who would like to contribute but for many diverse reasons are not doing so.

One of the most serious social problems that has faced successive Governments and has had cross-party consensus is the large number of young people who are not in employment, education or training—NEETs. The perceived view is that this is mainly a young male issue but the figures show a different story. There are significantly higher numbers of young women who are more likely to become and to stay NEET. The latest figures show that 500,000 young women aged 18 to 24 are NEET. That is over 90,000 more than young men over the course of last year and is 20% of all young women. This gender gap has remained persistent over time.

On average, in the past five years, there have been 100,000 more young women in that age group who are NEET than young men. These young women also stay NEET for longer. Even though there are more young men between the ages of 16 to 18, that figure changes in the 18 to 24 age group. Being NEET at such a young age has a significant impact on young women’s long-term outcomes. Evidence shows that double the number of women work in low-paid jobs and that they are more likely to remain trapped in low pay. One in four women is now earning less than the living wage, which is why it is so important to strengthen the minimum wage, and to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and agency working, which are the jobs where women are concentrated.

The recent ONS figures show a welcome increase in the rate of female employment but there are still more than 900,000 young people unemployed with more than 250,000 of them being unemployed for more than a year. While employment has increased, so, sadly, has the gender pay gap, which is now one of the highest in the EU. Women are still not getting the fair pay that they deserve. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Young Women’s Trust, which has evolved from the YWCA; it recently published a report, Young Women—the Real Story, based on its polling and focus groups with young women and on published data to find the facts and not the myths about being young and female in England and Wales today.

The report shows that, contrary to the popular feeling that young women have never had it so good, many face loneliness, thwarted ambitions and emotional and financial insecurity. It found that one in three young women feels that they are judged unfairly when they ask for help. One in four felt that they had no one to turn to when they could not figure out their problems by themselves. More than 50% had suffered from stress and 30% had self-harmed. One-third believed that paid apprenticeships in engineering and building trades were only for boys and more than one-third had never had any careers advice.

I know that these issues are not limited to young women. The recent report by Barnardo’s, Helping the Inbetweeners, which is the cohort just above NEETS, showed similar findings. But the outcomes for young women are much worse and evidence shows that it does not get any better as they go through life. We know that more women are working part time, and in temporary and insecure work.

The young women whom the charity works with are often struggling to make ends meet. They move in and out of part-time casual jobs and do not find any help to give them the skills, experience and support that they need to achieve their ambitions. The Young Women’s Trust talked to a 22 year-old from London called Sonia. When she was 14, she was made homeless after her father died and her mother sadly turned her out. Despite sleeping on floors and sofas, and in hostels, she went to college and qualified as a nursery nurse. But she has not been able to find a job and has been unemployed for three years. Her aspirations of working with children are different now: she just wants any job. She says, “I don’t really know where I’ll be in 10 years, time because it is difficult to see into the future if you are not really starting now”.

Despite these realities, the public debate about NEETs often centres on young men because on average they tend to do worse at school and more are unemployed. But that ignores the gender gap and the fact that far more young women are economically inactive than young men and therefore are even further from the labour market. There is a tendency to think that we know why so many young women are out of work, education or training. The perception is fed by the media, which generally attribute the problem to fecklessness, personal choice, young motherhood or the benefits system—we can take our pick. However, the reality is more complex and we need a more nuanced understanding of why this is. That is why the Young Women’s Trust will be undertaking a major piece of work in 2014 to find solutions so that all young women can find the quality, sustainable work they need to secure their future. We need to challenge the voices suggesting that it is because women make wrong choices.

In this debate, we have heard that academic girls outperform boys at school and more go to university. But what about the 36% of girls who in 2012, if you include English and maths, did not achieve five GCSEs at grades A to C? That is more than 100,000 girls who did not achieve the qualification level necessary for further education or training, or for starting employment. If they do on average achieve better grades than boys, it is still in subjects which lead to lower-paid jobs. That is why I am so concerned about the changes to the way in which young women get careers advice and guidance.

Here I shall echo some of the words of my noble friend Lady Prosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I readily acknowledge that careers guidance for young people was in need of reform and Connexions had serious failures. I also support the Government’s extension of the statutory duty to year 8, and to 16 to 18 year-olds in college. According to a survey by Careers England, since the Government decided to give responsibility to schools for careers advice without any funding, eight in 10 schools have dramatically cut the advice that they provide.

The Education Select Committee report says that the quality and quantity of careers advice and guidance has deteriorated at a time when it is most needed and called the decision to transfer responsibility for careers guidance to schools regrettable. Even the director of the CBI has questioned the laissez-faire approach of the Government. Barnado’s says:

“There is still too much gender-stereotyping in careers guidance”.

Much more needs to be done to encourage diversity of aspiration for all children, regardless of gender. I know the Government will not change their mind about what they have done on the careers service, but there is one small change that could make a difference. I believe that the Government should have adopted the Education Select Committee’s recommendation that there is a requirement in the statutory guidance for schools to publish an annual careers plan to include information on the support and resources available to their pupils in planning their career development, which could be reviewed annually.

Apart from issues of transparency and accountability, it would also ensure that a school would have to look at whether it was offering non-gender specific advice. We need to stop girls being told that their future lies in a default setting of beauty or childcare. We need to encourage diversity of aspiration regardless of gender so that all girls can fully contribute to the world they live in.

Finally, I have a request for all you noble tweeters. As I said, the Young Women’s Trust is campaigning to raise awareness of the reality of young women’s lives. Its #everydaySHEro campaign celebrates the ordinary women that make our lives that bit easier, better or just more fun. So please join in and nobly tweet your own #everydaySHEro and help celebrate everyday women’s contributions to society as part of International Women’s Day.

15:20

[Lord Loomba (LD)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Northover for initiating today’s debate to mark International Women’s Day, which has now become a calendar date. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Palumbo of Southwark on making a brilliant maiden speech today.

Today’s topic, women’s contribution to the UK economy and worldwide, is an important subject which is very close to my heart. I have always supported such issues both here and in other parts of the world. We all know that since World War II, many women have come forward to play a big role in the development of the UK economy by working in factories, retail, business and many other sectors. In addition, they have contributed to the development of these sectors by supporting their families. I am pleased to highlight this indirect contribution, which is often forgotten. Their contribution has been considerable and, without a doubt, has made a huge difference to the UK economy.

There is no dispute that women make a large contribution to the UK economy. I would like to focus on the contribution made by women in the clothing industry. I have been involved in the clothing industry for well over 40 years, starting from a market stall and going through different phases of retail, wholesale and the import business.

When I started my business in 1964 from a market stall in the north of England, I clearly remember that the clothing business was run mostly by men. We had assistants who were women but most of the wholesalers and manufacturers were men. I saw this trend going on until the late 1980s, when some of the high street multiple retailers started employing women buyers and heads of sales departments. It is a shame that it has taken so long to appreciate that women have the same ability as men in developing business strategy.

To give an example, recently the Financial Times reported:

“Where once men made up the majority of power players at the world’s big department stores, recent poaches and promotions have thrust five British or British-based women into the spotlight: Stacey Cartwright, the new chief executive of Harvey Nichols; Marigay McKee, president of Saks Fifth Avenue; Alannah Weston, deputy chairman of Selfridges Group; Averyl Oates, fashion commercial director of Galeries Lafayette; and Helen David, fashion director at Harrods”.

Those are just a few examples; internationally, the list of women is longer. There is a need for more women to come forward and take up positions in the fashion clothing industry so that they can contribute even more.

There is sufficient evidence that many companies, whether in the fashion business or any other business, do not have equal numbers of women and men on their boards. For example, there are 15 members of the Marks & Spencer board, only five of whom are women; at New Look, out of eight board members, there are no women; at Debenhams, two out of eight board members are women. This disparity is widespread: for example, at the moment only 20.4% of directors of FTSE 100 companies are women, falling to 15.1% for FTSE 250 companies.

A report by the Credit Suisse Research Institute, called Gender Diversity and the Impact on Corporate Performance, found that companies with at least one woman on their boards had better stock market results than companies with all-men boards. I am convinced that if proper education and training is given to a woman she can match a man in productivity and competitiveness. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to take the necessary steps to ensure that the right education and training is provided and that there are appropriate systems in schools from an early age.

During my life, I have seen the contribution made by women to the UK economy and around the world through the fashion industry. They could still increase their contribution if the Government would provide vocational skills and training in the areas of designing, making garments and business management. It would provide a huge opportunity for young girls and women to achieve much more in their lives, thus adding to the economy both nationally and internationally.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to convince the Government that, to get more women to contribute to the UK economy, they should, through the Department for Education, institute an early focus on practical, industry-focused skills and knowledge development. This process should also include early work experience placements that involve learning high-level skills. I urge the Government to make this as important as academic topics.

15:27

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for putting this debate on the agenda. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for taking a slightly different view from him over both garment workers and the education of women, which has been widely discussed.

In this country, the gender pay gap remains wide and has shown very little sign of shrinking. In the labour market, the gender pay gap is about £5,000 between women and men with the same education, from the same universities and doing very similar jobs. I therefore think putting the burden merely on women and their need to train and to participate is perhaps slightly misguided. I suggest to noble Lords that the difficulty that women face is that the labour market is gendered. That is to say, in this market women come as inferior bearers of labour: it is not what they do but the fact that they are women that undermines their ability to compete equally. The reasons for that are multitudinous, but include the reality that most women provide the work that they are offering to the labour market free of charge at home for men who subsequently are often in charge of appointing other women.

Women’s skills become invisible. We are the cooks, the cleaners and the carers. We are the ones who raise the children because we know how to do it. We are the educators and we train our children in all kinds of ways, but this work is completely invisible because it is assumed that we are somehow naturally cooks and carers. As someone who had to learn to cook from cookery books, I can tell you that it ain’t easy and I am still struggling.

The important thing is to begin to understand the gendered nature of the labour market and to try not to change women but actually to celebrate the notion of difference. So long as women participate in the labour market as quasi-men—manning the desks and being part of the manpower—they are simply attempting to become like men. However, they are not men because they always bear the burden of domesticity. That is the case even for women who are not married and those who do not have children. They are always seen as potential wives, and particularly as potential mothers. There is nothing so deskilling as motherhood. It is assumed that the moment women look after children, they themselves become childlike and lose any qualifications they have. If they return to the labour market, it is always assumed that at any point they are about to pop off to look after their children. They are therefore viewed as being not as good as the men. We are only ever going to be quasi-men.

Much has been said about providing employment for women. I would like to talk about minority women, particularly in west Yorkshire, where I have been working with many home-based producers. The double burden borne by minority women is increased by the moral economy of kin: the reality that minorities rely on one another, particularly woman who were first-generation migrants to this country. They relied extensively on men to be the gatekeepers and those who opened the way and helped them. Often, those women became home-workers in the garment industry. They worked all hours of the day producing goods for men—men against whom they could not strike, from whom they could not ask for any kind of wages, and against whom they could in no way defend their rights, not even their historic Koranic rights, which give them independence of income. Many men I talked to told me that the duty of Muslim women was to obey their men. They completely forgot all the other discussions in the Koran which demand, for example, wages for housework and for suckling babies. All of that is forgotten. The moral economy of kin demands that women should work all hours for virtually no wages. Once the garment industry began to relocate to where women’s labour was even cheaper, the women began to work in restaurants and in shops producing trinkets and jewellery. They did whatever they could, but that did not improve their experience or living conditions.

My hope is that the younger generation of women—those who have been born, raised and educated in this country and who are able to fend for themselves and speak the language—will do better. However, the problem for minority women is that they have different names and religions, and they face a very unequal labour market. When you go to work as a Muslim woman, you carry the whole burden not only of inferiority but, for younger women now, of Islamophobia. They cannot compete as equals. I know of women who have changed their names. I know of women who go to job interviews having discarded their hijab. They do that because Muslim women are desperate to work and are qualified to do so. In fact, many more Muslim women are doing engineering and the sciences than are other women, so there is a real need and demand among minority women to work.

The difficulty is that not only do these women face a gendered labour market, it is also a highly racialised and Islamophobic one. It seems to me that the only way forward may be through the use of quotas, to use that evil word. The only way we will get Muslim women into work at all stages is by setting quotas so that those with the same qualifications—they could even be asked for better qualifications because they often have them—are provided with the possibility to progress. Otherwise, the majority of Muslim women in this country, and perhaps, as has been mentioned, many other minority women, will stay on the sticky floor without the opportunity to move.

15:35

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Baroness for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important topic. International Women’s Day is a suitable and fitting time to acknowledge women’s contribution to the economy of this country and to countries all over the world. We have already heard many excellent speeches, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I reiterate points that have already been made.

Everywhere women play a significant role. However, their invaluable contributions are not always recognised and acknowledged, and all too often are still taken for granted, as the noble Baroness has already alluded to. It is a sobering reflection that even today, in the 21st century, there is not one single country where women have the same socioeconomic and political opportunities as men, and too many countries still have a patriarchal culture and discriminatory practices, with too few women in public and political leadership positions, thus limiting their ability to contribute.

This weekend, I am going to New York to take part in the 58th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, where the priority theme will be “Challenges and achievements in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals for women and girls”. In considering this theme, we will also be looking ahead to the post-MDG agenda. As my noble friend the Minister has already said, it is very important that we support the recommendations of the UN high-level panel, so ably co-chaired by our Prime Minister, in calling for a stand-alone goal for women because equality for women is progress for all.

To contribute to their full potential, women not only have to be able to access education, healthcare and family planning, they need to be able to lead lives free from the threat of violence. Seven in every 10 women report that they have experienced physical and/or sexual violence at some point in their lifetime. This is not something that just affects women in developing countries. Even here in the UK, two women die as the result of domestic violence every week, which is a shocking statistic.

In many countries it is hard for women to enter the public workplace because it goes against the societal norms and values. We have recently had discussions in this House about women in Afghanistan, to which my noble friend Lady Jenkin has already alluded. There it is estimated that 87% of women suffer from domestic violence and that the attitudes of the Taliban—that a woman’s place is in the house or the grave—still prevail. I salute all the brave Afghan women who have come forward to stand for parliament, to run organisations, to become lawyers, doctors, engineers and diplomats, and to enter many other professions. I know that many of them are very concerned about what will happen with the drawdown of the ISAF forces and I hope that consideration will be given to the security of women human rights defenders at the NATO conference this autumn so that the progress which has been made in Afghanistan does not roll back.

War can provide opportunities for social change. As has already been highlighted by my noble friend Lady Seccombe, this year marks the centenary of the outbreak of World War I. In that war, an estimated 2 million women replaced men in employment. My grandmother, the wife of a naval officer, went to work in a factory producing parts that were desperately needed at the front, and came up against the unions, who said that she and the other women were working too fast. However, at the end of the war, the majority of the women returned, not entirely willingly, to domesticity. The lessons learnt in World War I contributed to the mobilisation of women in World War II to an unprecedented degree. However, again, in the post-war era women were pushed backwards. I give the example of my mother, who worked for the Malcolm Clubs, which set up messes for the RAF overseas. She was one of the first women into Germany as the Allies advanced and then ran the whole of the Far East for them, going to Hiroshima weeks after the bomb had dropped. However, her managerial career was forced to end with the war, and the only line of work that she was able to pursue back in the UK was as a secretary.

We see similar trends today. In Egypt, for example, women were shoulder to shoulder with men in Tahrir Square to create the revolution, only to be pushed out once it had taken place. In the election that followed, only 2% of representatives elected were women.

Here in the UK, the rise in female participation in the labour market has been the defining trend for women of the past 50 years. Today, the increased participation of women in the labour market is vital to the formal economy and to families, with female earnings key to maintaining living standards by counterbalancing flat, and recently declining, wages from male employment. Today, 72% of working-age women are economically active compared with 84% of working-age men. However, women are considerably more likely to be working part-time than their male counterparts and are less likely to be self-employed. We still have a long way to go. As has already been highlighted, there is a gender pay gap: in 2013, hourly earnings for full-time women employees were still 15.7% less than men’s, and 19.1% when part-time employees are considered too. There also still seems to be this issue of the glass ceiling. Although we have some wonderful examples of successful businesswomen in the House, women still account for only 17.3% of FTSE 100 board directors. Why is that?

As we have already heard, girls today are a third more likely to apply for higher education. It would appear that it is when they have a baby that women’s careers can level out, as some women decide not to return to the workplace or to go part-time, thus stepping off the career progression ladder. Although many companies go out of their way to be supportive to mothers by offering flexible working and part-time packages, others do not. Anecdotally, I have heard of firms refusing to take employees back on a part-time basis. There are companies, especially in the City, who require very long working hours from their employees, which discriminate against women by making it difficult for them to get home to see their children. What is the Government’s attitude to this? Should companies be allowed to regularly demand very long hours from their employees, and how does this sit with the European working time directive?

I began my remarks by talking about how women’s contribution to the economy has not always been appreciated. Women also play an invaluable role in supporting the economy through their unpaid work, saving the UK Government an enormous amount of money. Childcare experts recognise that the care and attention a child receives when young will affect their health, behaviour and ability to learn throughout their lives. A stable family gives a child the best possible start. In most families, it is the mother who is the linchpin of the family and has a significantly greater responsibility for unpaid childcare and domestic work, which, when valued at the minimum wage, equates to about 20% of GDP. Some 58% of unpaid carers are female. Of course it is hard to set an exact cost, but its economic value was estimated at £119 billion in 2011, a huge contribution to the UK economy.

Women also make an enormous contribution in the charitable sector by working as volunteers, as my noble friend Lord Holmes mentioned. Time is short, so I will pick just one example: the hospice movement. According to Help the Hospices, most of the funding for hospice care comes from local fundraising, with only a third of the cost being met by government. More than 100,000 people volunteer in local hospices across the UK, without which they could not be run. A study in 2006 estimated the economic value of their volunteers to be over £112 million.

We should celebrate the contribution women make to their economies, especially as regards unpaid work. If women achieved greater equality, it would help their economies. I end with the words of Hillary Clinton:

“I believe that the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st century”.

15:44

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on an excellent and entertaining speech. He has moved from the Ministry of Sound to the Parliament of Speech. His speech adds to the many we have had and is an excellent addition.

It is always a great joy to take part in this annual debate as we are surrounded by noble Lords who have actually improved the lives of women in this country—whether that was last year or 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago when they were active in the women’s movement. I would also mention the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women, the Women’s National Commission, Ministers who have moved departments to be more women-friendly and Back-Benchers who have applied their specialisms to ensuring that women’s progress is an onward march.

I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating this important debate to mark International Women’s Day. I will look specifically, and briefly, at the UK. The topic of women’s contribution to our economy might not seem overtly controversial, until we remember that only a few months ago we had the disgraceful episode of the Twitter trolls coming out from under their stones when it was suggested that women’s faces on bank notes might be a good idea. Anyone who suggests that women’s struggle for equality is now accepted in the UK has only to read about the experience of the victims of that Twitter episode to know that that is not the case.

The contribution of women to the economy is a story of some good news—we would be churlish not to admit the progress that we have all made—and quite a lot of not so good news. The good news is that women’s leadership role in the economy in terms of female directors of companies, which many noble Lords have mentioned, is at last growing, albeit from a very low base.

I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch for his report, which raised the bar for our expectations for women on boards. His proposal fell short of quotas—of which, I put my hand up, I am a big fan; I have seen what all-women shortlists and quotas have done to transform women’s activity in the Labour Party and, therefore, the Labour Government’s moves, measures and initiatives aimed at progressing women—but was that companies should achieve a target of 25% female membership of boards by 2015. In 2010 women made up only 12.5% of the members of corporate boards of FTSE 100 companies. Since the publication of my noble friend’s report, that has grown to 20.4%, an increase of 7.9% since 2010. He will for ever be an honorary sister.

However, before we get too excited, there are still all-male boards in the FTSE 100, hanging on by their fingertips, even if it is now down to only two. That is, of course, a nonsense. As Helen Cook, HR director of RBS, said recently, an increased gender balance on boards has become “a commercial imperative”, with boards with more women achieving “better financial results”. The Credit Suisse research report of 2012 found that over the previous six years stocks in companies with women on the board outperformed the stocks of companies with no women on the board. The study also found that the difference in share price was more marked after 2008—we all remember 2008—with stocks of companies with at least one woman on the board tending to perform better than male-only boards in markets where share prices were falling. It took an unprecedented worldwide economic crash to begin to convince men that women make economic sense.

Professional career paths and women’s tendency to produce children—shock, horror; hold the front page—continue to clash at some point in their lives, but there is at least some gradual but very good news coming from the boardroom floor. Have we finally moved on from the time when it is easier for a woman to become a bishop—or, in my religion, a cardinal—than a board director in a British company? Well, we shall see.

There is also some brighter news when it comes to female entrepreneurs. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills found that, in 2012, 19% of small and medium-sized enterprises were either run by women or had a management team that was more than 50% female. In 2010 only 14% of such businesses had a female majority leadership. However, much of the groundwork for that increase was laid in the actions and incentives of the previous Government in encouraging women to run their own businesses, and our party’s pledge is to back more women to start their own businesses in 2015 by cutting business rates.

I am grateful to the Federation of Small Businesses—it is not often I say that—for its timely briefing for this debate. Its figures drill down into different sectors where women are at the helm. We have heard about the retail sector. The federation tells us that nearly 50% of small firms established in the past two years in the retail, hotel, catering and leisure sectors are owned primarily by women. It also makes the important statement that it is vital to support female entrepreneurship, and that 150,000 additional start-ups would be created each year in the UK if women started businesses at the same rate as men. We will grow ourselves out of these times of austerity only if women’s contribution to the economy is recognised and encouraged in these ways.

When it comes to labour market activity, 67% of women are now active in the labour market. This is the highest figure since 1971 and is to be welcomed. On the higher education front, we see that women now constitute 60% of all new university graduands. That is not particularly new but represents a complete change from a generation ago when less than 40% of graduands were women. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked in his excellent speech, why do the executive positions in our professions, especially in science and engineering, not reflect the massive improvement in women’s skills over this generation?

There are so many encouraging signs for women in the economy but—a big but—the economic experience for millions of women across the UK has been far from positive. It is just not good enough that, according to ONS figures, women working full-time in the category “professional occupations” earn only 80% of what men in that category earn; in the category “director”, women earn only 75% of what men do; and in the category “skilled trades”, women also earn only 75% of what men do. This latest publication of figures from the ONS shows that there has been very little change in that gap since 2007. That is just not good enough. Of course, those figures only address women in full-time work. As we know, and have heard from many noble Lords in this debate, a larger percentage of women work in part-time jobs than is the case for men. Those jobs are often unstable, multiple and badly paid. In the last four or five years they have been on the increase.

My late mother’s long illness with dementia brought me close to the social care sector. My conclusion is that we need to respect the caring professions more than we do at present as a country. Some 1.5 million people, mostly women, are employed in the adult social care sector. Of those, 300,000 care workers are on zero-hours contracts and up to 220,000 do not earn the minimum wage. When we brought my mother home from hospital to die, her care assistants were the first on the scene. They dressed and soothed her bed sores with great love and attention, as if she had two more decades to live and not just two more days. Her eyes lit up when she saw them and they were there at her funeral. The status of caring, be it by family or care assistant, is an issue we have to grasp.

That comes to my noble friend Lady Prosser’s statement about the value of women’s work. We have to grasp that point if we are to be an economically credible country. It is not acceptable that women still struggle on in low-wage, temporary and insecure work. One in four women now earn less than the living wage. More women than ever before work in temporary jobs because they cannot find a permanent position. Women make up the majority of zero-hours contracts. Our aim must be to see women take their proper and rightful place in the economic future and prosperity of this country as we move away from the austerity of the last five years and into better times.

15:57

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I am proud to speak in this International Women’s Day debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Northover for securing it as it gives us an opportunity to highlight the topsy-turvy world of women. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Palumbo on his excellent maiden speech. I am thrilled that he chose to make it today as we celebrate this important event.

There has not been a better time for women to blossom and excel in a wide range of professions. In so many careers, women are striding forward and shaping the way their professions are delivered in areas which in the past were dominated by men, from test driving a Formula 1 racing car to being an award-winning architect. We now have a senior woman leading judge—mind you, she is the only woman among 12 Supreme Court Justices. We have the first woman to command a major Navy warship, Commander Sarah West, who took up her post just this year. All those women are making substantial contributions to the UK and global world and are wonderful role models.

Since my dear friend, the formidable Marchioness of Lothian—Tony to her friends—founded the Women of the Year lunch nearly 60 years ago to celebrate the achievements of women, many women have fought their way to the top of their profession across the spectrum, despite the barriers placed in their way. Over the years, those women have paved the way for the younger generation, which is now benefiting from their hard work, perseverance and determination.

The toughened glass ceiling still exists; it is very much in place; and there is much, much more to achieve and undiscovered territories to charter and to conquer. However, I am an optimist and like to focus on the bright side of life, so I point out that women are now leading the field in many professions, such as primary school teachers, in medicine as GPs, and in the veterinary world, where more than 60% of vets are women. Almost a quarter of senior positions in advertising are held by women, and they make up half of that world-leading industry which brought in £100 billion for the UK’s economy in 2012. At present, we have a female Lord Mayor of London, Fiona Woolf. Mind you, she is only the second in the City of London’s 800-year history. She is determined to make a difference and has set up the Power of Diversity programme to identify and promote the steps that the City at all management levels must take to maximise the energy and innovation that diversity can bring to business to create an inclusive labour market.

Speaking of diversity, women from culturally diverse backgrounds are still far behind in the race for equality and are battling to break through the many barriers and the many layers of glass ceilings that they encounter. They are even further behind than their white counterparts. There are very few in any senior positions, and that includes the nursing profession and the media—despite the fact that women make up a third of the senior positions in the media—or in the legal profession. The list goes on and on.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, highlighted in her speech, if you are black and a woman, it is a double whammy. In saying so, my mother would never have dreamt of being in my position today when she came to Britain back in 1958. Yes, who would have thought?

Whatever cultural background you are from, sadly, there are still gaps where women do not feature significantly, such as the upper levels of higher education where, despite the fact that women students outnumber men at university, only 17% of the UK’s vice-chancellors are women. Amazingly, only one Russell group university has a female vice-chancellor, and only 20% of all university professors are women. I am proud to say that the University of Exeter, where I am the Chancellor, so declare an interest, is leading the way, because 40% of the executive board are female. Our chair of council and one of our deputy vice-chancellors are both women.

Thankfully, a great deal of work is now being undertaken by universities and schools which aims to counteract early-stage gender stereotyping and engage young girls from all backgrounds academically and, later, professionally. There is also much being done to address social mobility to bridge that widening gap, especially in the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths. I believe that this will go a long way to giving young women confidence and a sense of pride—to feel worthy and develop the ability to assert themselves, learning to seize opportunities to achieve success and take on roles from which they might normally shy away.

There is another area where there is a distinct absence of women: in top banking positions. Unbelievably, not one woman has ever served in the CEO position in a major bank. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia is ahead of us here because it announced just yesterday that its National Commercial Bank has appointed a woman in the top position. How long will it take us here in the UK to make such an announcement? I hope it is not too long because recently I was encouraged to hear that Lloyds Bank is setting up an initiative to attract women into senior positions in the banking world to address this inequality. Who knows? This could create a wholly different way of doing business that helps bring back trust in the banking world.

Women are finding it tough to juggle family life and childcare, which is very expensive, as we have heard time and again, and to hold down certain types of careers. So many are delaying having children because they want to establish a career first but those who decide to have a family early find that when they return to the workplace, having found adequate childcare, they have to start from scratch and not where they left off. Perhaps companies should be encouraged by the Government to set up some sort of re-entry scheme and make it available to these women to assist them to restart their careers, because those women’s talents are needed in the workplace and their skills are beneficial to the economy, if given a chance. I would be interested to hear my noble friend’s views on this idea.

Today, “housework” has another meaning for many women because, with the new technology available nowadays, women can work from home more easily. Many are now setting up successful businesses, which contribute to the economy, while being there for their children. One such original business is The Parent Zone, which was set up in 2005 to provide information that would help parents to keep their children safe in the digital world, as many parents find it difficult bringing up their children in this new age world. The Parent Zone has grown from strength to strength, supplying 1 million copies of its magazine to schools to help parents keep children protected. The need to do so is getting worse rather than better because too many children are becoming sexualised before their time, due to the adult material that is easily available online, including pornography. The Parent Zone is educating and influencing parents and contributing to society in a positive way.

However, it is not just the women in the workplace or those who run businesses from home who make a huge contribution to the global economy. There are also the women who are the unsung heroines of our economy and who contribute indirectly. Yes, we must also celebrate the contributions of the women who make a conscious decision to stay at home and care for their children. Interestingly, in Germany two-thirds of working women stay at home for the first two years of their children’s lives and are proud and happy to do so, yet here in Britain I often hear women use the phrase, “I’m only a housewife”. I say to those women that they should be proud of themselves because they are just as worthy as anyone and are contributing to the country’s future and long-term economy.

So let us not forget those women who stay at home and undertake the difficult task of childcare, managing the household and nurturing, guiding and motivating their children. They can be the best role models to their children. Even though it is a job that is not always celebrated, acknowledged or financially rewarded, it is invaluable and serves as the backbone of our society, giving children the confidence to take up their place in our global world and contribute in a positive way. I applaud them for choosing to forgo their careers and become some of the country’s biggest economic assets that benefit society.

I always pass on a philosophy that my beloved mother instilled in me: to encourage girls and young women to look far beyond the horizon with high self-esteem and a positive attitude, never taking no for an answer and never ever giving up. A whole new world awaits young women today who are now setting out on the pathway to a successful career. I am confident that the tide is turning and outdated prejudices are being swept away as business and industry realise that talented, hard-working women are a fantastic untapped resource.

I say to women everywhere: celebrate International Women’s Day with pride. The world needs you now more than ever, so be prepared to step up to the mark as you take your place and secure that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Do not be afraid to press the reset button and change the world. Have no fear about speaking out for the sake of good. Please do things the ethical way, though, for the future well-being of all the world’s children and our beautiful, delicate planet. Here’s to women across the world and to the men who believe in us.

16:11

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the speakers in today’s debate. I thank the Minister for landing us this debate and getting it extended to cover the whole world. We have benefited from her contribution about her brief and that of my noble friend Lady Royall, and indeed from the experience of women across the world. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on his excellent maiden speech; we look forward to hearing more from him, as I am sure we will as time goes on. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on giving us, as it were, an update on the position of women bishops. I certainly look forward to sharing a glass of pink champagne with him—that is probably the best offer of this debate, actually. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that I very much enjoyed his speech and was very inspired by it, and I do not think that I was alone in that.

I shall be concentrating on the contribution of women to our economy and the barriers that we face. I will be looking at what the Government could and should be doing to make the world a better place for women and make it easier for them to work. I come from a background where there was really never any question that women worked, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, mentioned. We had to go out to work in our family. When I grew up, it was only really middle-class women and those who lived in salaried families for whom the choice was available to stay at home and be homemakers and full-time mothers.

Although I agree with the Minister, who was quite right to say that our lives have been transformed and are quite different from those of our mothers, guess what—I do not think that that much has actually changed in the past 60 years regarding the economic imperatives for going out to work. Going out to work is not a choice for millions of women in the UK or indeed for millions of women across the world, working in factories and fields and from home. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, rightly paid tribute to the work involved in childcare and caring, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.

My grandma Edna had 11 children. During the Second World War she worked on the railways. She had to work, and was able to because of the provision of proper state-run nursery care. Her eldest daughter, Jean—my mother—had seven children. Leaving aside the contraception and family planning issues in my family, which have kept us all entertained over many years, she also worked. She ran two successful businesses. The option of being a full-time homemaker and mother was never open to her—and I am not sure she would have dreamt of taking it if it had. In this 2014 International Women’s Day debate, I pay my tribute to Jean and to Marie, Eileen and Alma, who are her sisters, for their contribution to our economy over the whole of their lives, and it is on their shoulders that I stand today—to use the image used by my noble friend Lady Royall. I do have a granddaughter. She is only six months old, but it is also for her future that I speak today.

Sometimes when we say from these Benches that the Government seem out of touch with the lives of women, it is because of this component. There is sometimes a lack of understanding of life as it is lived by millions of women for whom going out to work is not a choice and for whom childcare is essential. Today it is very expensive. Almost all women will have caring responsibilities at various times in their lives. We do not have to look very far to see the lives of ordinary women. I know that some of the women who clean our offices have other jobs. They go from here to work in supermarkets and other places to support their children through school and to pay increasing rent and travel costs. Their hard-working life is very typical and very common today, which is why, for example, the national minimum wage, which was fought against and opposed by the Conservative Party at the time, is so important. It is why trade unions have an important, vital role to play in supporting women in their fight for decent pay and conditions and in protecting their rights at work.

As the Minister said, there are more women in work today, which is indeed a cause for celebration. There are also more women who want to work who are not able to do so because jobs are not there, or they are too badly paid or, as my noble friend Lady Prosser said, training opportunities do not exist. Women Like Us is a brilliant organisation, and it is also a social enterprise—noble Lords may remember that I am very keen on social enterprises. More social enterprises than small businesses are headed by women, and they have a better survival rate than small businesses.

Women often have to look after their family and undertake other caring responsibilities. There are millions of women who give up their jobs to look after sick and ageing partners, parents and relatives and whose reward for their unpaid, loving care is not celebration or gratitude but to find it more difficult to re-enter the job market and often not at the level that they left it. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Bakewell celebrated our millions of carers.

The question I shall address today is what the Government are doing to make it easier, better and more equitable for women to work and how they match up to those challenges. It will be a bit of a report card. On Tuesday, we saw a headline story which asked the question: “What does childcare really cost?”. A report by the Family and Childcare Trust suggested that the cost of having two children looked after, even part-time, is more than the average mortgage. Over recent weeks, there has been mounting evidence of the impact that increasingly high childcare costs are having on family budgets and our economy, yet the Government seem to be in denial about this.

I dispute the rosy picture painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about the childcare situation. The cost of sending a child under two to nursery part-time—for 25 hours—is now more than £109 per week in Britain or £5,710 per year. The cost of a full-time—42 hours per week—nursery place for a child under two is almost £10,000. Over the past five years, childcare costs for under-twos have risen by 27%, meaning that parents are paying £1,214 more in 2014 than they did in 2009, and I remind noble Lords that wages have remained the same. This is a good example of the cost-of-living crisis facing ordinary families. Ironically, I heard yesterday of a nursery in south-west London which is putting up its fees and citing the cost-of-living crisis as the justification in the letter that it sent to parents. Perhaps it has missed the point there somewhere.

The average cost of an after-school club is now £48.19 a week, or £1,830 a year. Despite the legal obligation in the Childcare Act 2006 and Scotland’s early years framework to ensure enough childcare, only half—49%—of local authorities have enough childcare for working parents. Only a third—33%—of local authorities have enough childcare for children aged five to 11, and this has worsened in the past five years. Three-quarters—75%—of local authorities do not have enough childcare for disabled children; that was more than adequately amplified by my noble friend Lady Uddin.

Even Fraser Nelson of the Spectator, not someone I would normally quote, asked whether:

“Expensive child care is robbing Britain of its female talent”.

He says:

“In this way, the British economy loses out on the talents of a significant chunk of our high-skilled female population. It’s a form of economic self-harm. Making childcare tax-deductible would, in a great many cases, be a game-changer”.

Of course, it is above my pay grade and that of the Minister to comment on matters of tax and spending. However, it is interesting if even a right-wing commentator thinks that the inadequacies and costs of childcare are robbing the UK economy of female talent. My honourable friend Lucy Powell MP said recently:

“Early years places have fallen by 35,000 since 2009 and just half of local authorities report they have enough childcare for working parents”.

Last month, the IPPR highlighted that high childcare costs are stopping many mothers from working and that increasing maternal employment rates would benefit families and the economy to the tune of £1.5 billion a year. It is not cost-effective not to have effective childcare. There is also a question of flexibility of working practices which support working fathers. In Germany and Scandinavia we can see fathers changing the working culture so that they, for example, take the Friday off to undertake childcare responsibilities, even at a very senior level. Would the Minister care to tell us what the Government are doing to encourage working fathers to take their fair share of childcare among the Civil Service?

The Government are reducing work incentives for the lowest earners by cutting tax credit support and creating a two-tier system in universal credit. The Resolution Foundation has reported this will see the poorest families lose £1,000 a year to help pay for childcare. Unlike the current Government, on these Benches we completely understand how important it is that we address the issues with childcare and enable more parents, especially mums, to return to work or work longer hours.

Turning to older women, I think that there is much to celebrate about the labour market position of women over 50 in the UK. The employment rate for women in this age group is high compared with many other European countries, and it is increasing. The employment rate for women aged between 50 and 64 has increased by 14 percentage points over the past two decades, the greatest increase in any group. However, many older women will not recognise the rosy picture painted by these headline statistics. Half of the women aged 50 to 64 work in the delivery of public services, which means that they have been hit by the cuts disproportionately. Redundancies, pay freezes and increased contracting out of services feature prominently in the stories the TUC gathered from older women as part of the Age Immaterial project. Part-time work is prevalent among women over 50 and the majority of them earn less than £10,000 per year. The problems of low pay, lack of job security and weak employment rights are exacerbated for those in precarious forms of work such as zero-hours contracts, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Crawley.

I very much welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, recognised that women are experiencing disproportionate effects of the austerity agenda. Indeed, the coalition Government have removed support for childcare, capped maternity pay and have chosen to give a tax break to married couples where one spouse does not work or works a few hours. I do not think that there is any evidence that less than £4 a week is a good or appropriate way to encourage people to marry. In five out of six cases the benefit will be paid to the husband. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, many families will face a £200 penalty if mum returns to work full-time. In December the official figures revealed that the gender pay gap had increased in 2012-13 for the first time in five years. Under Labour, the pay gap fell by 7.7%.

I will glance at our record. We introduced the national minimum wage, which has had such a disproportionately positive effect on low-paid women. We opened 3,500 Sure Start centres to support parents and young families. We increased maternity leave to nine months and extended total maternity leave to a full year. We doubled maternity pay, and from 2009 gave millions of parents with children under 16 the right to flexible working. We introduced working tax credit and child tax credit and legislated against maternity and sex discrimination in the workplace.

What will we do when we are elected next year? Under David Cameron, one in four women earn less than the living wage, but I am happy to tell noble Lords that we will make work pay for women by allowing firms to claim back a third of the cost of raising their staff’s wages to a living wage. We will strengthen the minimum wage and tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts. We will give every working family 25 hours of free childcare for their three and four year-olds, 38 weeks a year—an increase of 10 hours on the current offer. We will deliver a primary childcare guarantee, which will ensure that the parents of primary school pupils are able to access breakfast and after-school clubs through their school between 8 am and 6 pm. We will back more women to start their own businesses, which my noble friend Lady Crawley mentioned. Private firms will be able to claim back a third of the cost of raising their staff’s wage to a living wage. This evidence shows that we still think that the Government are out of touch with the lives of many women.

We have had some magnificent and fabulous speeches today, from my noble friend Lord Haskel, the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe, Lady Howe and Lady Afshar, and my noble friend Lady Howells. On the issue of parliamentary selections I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Jenkin, that we tried a woman on every shortlist in the 1980s and it did not work. It was tokenism. The only way to increase the number and representation of women—I say this to the Liberal Democrats, and I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, agrees with me on this—is to have all-women shortlists. That is the only way that you will persuade your parties to select women and increase the number of women. We would welcome that and would support noble Lords in doing it.

I struggle to give better than five out of 10 for the Government’s support for working women and their families. That five is because the Minister has great words to say and very good intentions, which I hope will be translated into the policies of her party. However, on this International Women’s Day 2014, the UK Government need to do better.

16:27

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the debates in the House of Lords for International Women’s Day are always outstanding, and this one has been no exception. There is such huge experience and commitment among your Lordships in this area that it is a great privilege to respond. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Palumbo, who chose to make his maiden speech in this debate today, and whom we welcome as a significant contributor to our House. One can see how far-sighted he is when he speaks of employers recognising that starting a family enhances, not compromises, what an employee can contribute.

It is also good to have so many male contributions to the debate today, including from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, who flagged his optimism that we might soon see women on his Benches, possibly by the time of this debate next year. I was also very pleased that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond participated, despite his case of extreme man flu. My eldest son has a habit of catching such flu, and although he beat it this autumn, when he sent me an e-mail from Nigeria saying, “Mum, I have acute typhoid”, it required my daughter to say that if he is well enough to send the e-mail, he is probably all right. Cross fingers—he probably is.

We have marked International Women’s Day for over a century. The lives of women in this country have been transformed over that century, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe so clearly showed, and as other noble Lords have remarked. I was very touched by the speech of my noble friend Lady Seccombe. In this year, in which we mark the centenary of the First World War, she is right to remind us not only how it changed lives in terms of women’s engagement in the workforce but in terms of the mental and physical suffering that ensued from that appalling conflict—indeed, in her own life.

As noble Lords’ speeches have made clear, inequalities persist. Women earn less, and we have by far the larger responsibility for children in the home and for care of elderly relatives, as well as working. Women are less likely to be in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, less likely to be on boards on the top of companies, in our Supreme Court or among our judges, as vice-chancellors of universities, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley pointed out, or as editors of newspapers, and so on. Indeed, we see progress, but sometimes it seems glacial, although it is good to hear from my noble friend Lady Benjamin about Exeter. I note what my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville flagged on behalf of my noble friend Lady Falkner in relation to the diplomatic service. I assure noble Lords that I shall make sure that that is heard very loudly in the FCO.

I spoke in my opening speech about the action that we are taking right across government to promote equality. We know that girls are outperforming boys at school, so by investing in education, expanding our apprenticeship programme and improving careers advice, we can help young women to open their eyes to opportunities that they may have believed were unobtainable, and help them to make ambitious choices. Introducing shared parental leave will help to end the assumption that women will be the main carer for a child, helping families to juggle their home and work life and lessening the negative impact on careers of time spent out of the workplace.

We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, about the impact of having children. Noble Lords are right about the importance of addressing the need for childcare that is affordable, flexible and of high quality. My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, particularly emphasised the issue of childcare. As I said, we have extended free childcare for all three to four year-olds to 15 hours—from what was offered by the previous Government—and we are also offering that now to disadvantaged two year-olds. We are also helping with the cost via a tax-free childcare scheme, which is worth up to £1,200 a year from 2015. There is an extra £200 million for childcare subsidies through universal credit, and we are working to improve supply through grants to childcare businesses and setting up childminder agencies.

I recall the cost myself of having three under-fives and working. As I did the other day, I pay tribute to the party opposite for the work that it did to improve the quality and availability of childcare during its time in office. However, I point out that costs rose considerably in the 2000s. What we have sought successfully to do, as the Family and Childcare Trust’s figures bear out, is to stabilise those costs. As for provision, providers show that there are sufficient places and, in fact, vacancies; that said, we know that there is much to do, which is why we have put a great deal of effort into this.

In regard to working fathers, a point flagged up by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I was personally speechless when the media criticised Edward Davey for taking paternity leave when his new baby arrived. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, with regard to trolls, we have a long way to go.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Uddin, flagged the need to support carers, generally and in the workplace. We are implementing the recommendations of the report, Supporting Working Carers: The Benefits to Families, Business and the Economy, which was published in 2013. We are improving support for business and developing the market in care and support services, and the Care Bill will help to provide protection and support to those who need it most, including carers. But the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is right to emphasise the contribution that carers, from the family or not, can make. My noble friend Lady Benjamin, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others are right to emphasise the contribution of those who are in unpaid work. It is still work and it still contributes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, rightly urged us to address the value and engagement of those who are nowhere near the glass ceiling but are, rather, around the skirting board, as she described it. The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, flagged the minimum wage, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. They will have noted that my right honourable friend the Business Secretary has expressed his sympathy with the proposal to raise this. I do not want to get into a competition over this by saying, “We did this and you did that”, but I would point out that, in raising the tax threshold, we have disproportionately benefited women, and I am very proud of the fact that we have done that.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Uddin and Lady Howells, and my noble friend Lady Benjamin rightly urged us to ensure that what we do is inclusive of all groups, whatever their religion, race and background. We agree with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, flagged the particular challenges facing Muslim women. We pay tribute to the work that she and others are doing in that regard, and hear what she says.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Nye and Lady Prosser, spoke of the pay gap, which is a worldwide problem. The noble Lord wanted to know the relevant figures. In the United Kingdom, the pay gap is narrowing steadily. It was 25% 10 years ago and is now 19.7%. The pay gap is linked to the occupations in which women traditionally work and these sectors tend to be lower paid. We have addressed many of the issues around that in this debate. From October 2014, employment tribunals will require companies that lose an equal pay case to undertake a pay audit. We must, indeed, continue to work very hard to close this gap.

My noble friend Lady Bottomley mentioned women in the penal system and highlighted their situation and her proposed engagement with them. As she mentioned this, my noble friend Lady Jolly whispered to me that she used to provide evening classes in maths and science in Dartmoor, so there we have some STEM engagement.

All noble Lords are right to emphasise the need to address the position of women across the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and my noble friend Lady Jenkin flagged a problem that occurs at every level—that is, violence, which may be physical or insidiously mental. We are extremely exercised by this. The Government have set out their approach to the action plan on violence against women, which will be updated on 8 March, on International Women’s Day. We have ring-fenced £40 million for specialist domestic violence and sexual violence support services, and we have extended the definition of “domestic violence” to include 16 to 17 year-olds and coercive behaviour. We have announced the rollout of domestic violence protection orders and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and we have introduced domestic homicide reviews and relaunched the “This is Abuse” campaign, aimed at teenage boys and girls. I remember answering a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, on that area.

We continue to work with the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I am very happy to agree that he is a noble sister; I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, described him as that. He is remarkable and has done a great deal to promote equality in the boardroom. He has tried to ensure that talented women take their rightful place at the top and, once there, provide a different view, which helps business maximise its potential, coming back to the point that my noble friend Lord Palumbo made.

My noble friend Lady Bottomley rightly flagged that we must not concentrate on women on boards to the exclusion of women at every level. We fully agree with that and other noble Lords echoed that point. My noble friend Lord Watson flagged that my right honourable friend Vincent Cable has requested that the EHRC should look at the legal possibilities of quotas for companies. No doubt this will be passed to the board of my noble friend Lord Holmes. I look forward very much indeed to hearing what the outcome might be. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has also made clear, quotas have to be a possible backstop if we do not see enough progress.

My noble friend Lord Smith has been a doughty and invaluable campaigner for better gender equality, and I personally value his support enormously. His determination that we should have no complacency in this matter rings in my ears. I would say to my noble friend Lady Jenkin that I think he is actually targeting my party and his party. However, perhaps I may pick him up on one point regarding the reports on office size, which seemed to indicate that women Ministers were undervalued. In this particular case, it is a bit of a red herring. The position gets somewhat distorted by adding in my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s room, which is 10 times the size of that of any of his Cabinet colleagues. I happen to know that my right honourable friend Justine Greening chose a smaller room in the DfID building because it was in the new part of the building where most of the officials were, when she could have had the very large, beautiful office that my right honourable friend Alan Duncan has. However, she chose not to have that office in order to be with the officials. It is always worth flagging these points.

[Lord Smith of Clifton]

Does that not make the case for having a woman Foreign Secretary?

[Baroness Northover]

I will volunteer immediately, but I think that my noble friend Lady Warsi will be in front of me. Of course my noble friend Lord Smith is right.

By providing support to women wishing to start and grow their own business, both at home and in the developing world, we could see equality in business, and equalising the economic participation rates of men and women could add 10% to GDP by 2030. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe had some very useful perceptions in this regard. Women-led SMEs already add £70 billion to the UK economy. We agree that there is tremendous potential here.

My noble friend Lady Bottomley mentioned that women were less likely to be peacocks, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned that men apply for promotion a year before they should, while women apply a year after they should. Having just read Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In, this seems to be a worldwide challenge. That, again, is why my noble friend Lord Palumbo’s far-sightedness, which Sheryl Sandberg shares, of recognising and promoting the contribution that women make to businesses, is indeed so important.

My noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, flagged the challenges of getting women into STEM subjects. We are working very hard on this. Last night I was very encouraged to attend a reception hosted by the DPM for female apprentices. The enthusiasm of these women was palpable. One of the things that they emphasised was that they had a battle against their schools when they tried to head down the apprenticeship route. They asked that schools should rate apprenticeships as highly as they rate universities. This is indeed what we are seeking to do through new careers advice in schools. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, that last night I met a remarkable apprentice who happens to be black and is apprenticed at Dr Martens. I can show the noble Baroness on my telephone some rather inadequate pictures of the stunning silk and fake crocodile Dr Martens shoes that this young lady had designed and made in the space of two days. I had no doubt that she could sell them worldwide.

My noble friend Lord Holmes gave a moving speech and reminded us strongly of how outstanding are our sportswomen. I noted that there were four winning individuals or teams at Sochi, and that three of them were female. However, that did not stand in the way of national delight and enthusiasm. It did not, and I would make that point to the media.

We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, just how fantastic the contribution of women can be in the arts, as outlined in the cases she mentioned. I recognise not least the contribution that JK Rowling makes both to the UK Exchequer and to the fantasy life of children and adults. It was absolutely wonderful to see a dyslexic child, who had never read a book all the way through before, sit in a corner and not move until they had read all the way through a Harry Potter book.

I pay tribute as I always do, and as my noble friend Lord Smith has, to the party opposite for what it has done to encourage women to enter politics. I think that my noble friend was actually attacking my party rather than my coalition partners. I have fought long and hard in my party over many years, but we have a particular challenge because we have no safe seats—if only we had. That is why I am very glad that, at least in the House of Lords, 31% of my party’s Members are women, making us the largest group. I am also glad, astounded and impressed that in five of the six Liberal Democrat seats where MPs are standing down, we have managed to select women. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Brinton for her sterling efforts in that regard.

We all know that we must do more at every level. I have seen what a transformative difference Labour women MPs have made and, just like the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I have seen a transformative difference made by women parliamentarians working together in Pakistan. What we have heard about the position of women worldwide reinforces the need to have a stand-alone goal on gender in the MDGs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made clear.

My noble friend Lord Watson of Richmond, like others, reminded us of some of the barriers faced by women elsewhere. I certainly saw what he referred to when I visited Saudi Arabia. The women are corralled into a small area in the university, unable to participate alongside men unless they are medical students. They are unable even to visit the library. I saw the horror on male faces as I was allowed to walk through the university. As I have mentioned before, the position of women came home to me even in my western-style hotel in Riyadh, where there was a swimming pool. I went down to the pool with my swimsuit but was turned away because it was not the “women’s hour” to swim. When I asked when the women’s hour was, I was told, “There isn’t one”.

Given the situation of women around the world, I am very proud of our work overseas. In our international development work, the UK has put girls and women at the heart of its approach. DfID’s strategic vision for women and girls has set ambitious targets to enhance the economic empowerment of girls and women in developing countries. I laid out the principles in my opening speech. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointed out, women do so much of the work yet have so little of the property. The imbalance is extremely striking. Two-thirds of women are illiterate and one in nine girls is forced into marriage before her 14th birthday.

Overseas, we are indeed battling against violence. Women cannot fully participate if they are subjected to violence, which they often are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointed out. She will know of the efforts that we are making in that respect with a £25 million research and innovation fund looking at what works in preventing violence against women and girls.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, raised the issue of FGM. I am very proud of what my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone is doing in combating this overseas, and it is having an effect, too, in the United Kingdom. That is extremely welcome. It is the first time that there has been a commitment of £35 million to combat FGM overseas. I know that I am running short of time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned concerns in relation to Pakistan, and my noble friends Lady Jenkin and Lady Hodgson mentioned Afghanistan. Probably all three of them will know of our very strong commitment to supporting women and girls right across the board in terms of schooling, engagement and reproductive health. That commitment in Afghanistan continues and I can write with further details if they wish.

My noble friend Lady Fookes asked about women’s political participation and leadership. DfID supports that in a number of countries and, again, I can write with details. However, I will point out that the CPA, IPU and Westminster Foundation have continuing programmes along the lines that she mentions. I know that the CPA is asking right now for a volunteer to do the type of training to which she refers in April in Kenya. Perhaps she would like to volunteer.

In conclusion, this has been a very wide-ranging and informative debate. I was enormously struck by what my noble friend Lady Bottomley said when quoting the chief executive of a company, which I shall not name, who said that the future was not with the BRICs but with women. That is most cheering and a very positive note. I hope that I have made clear the Government’s determination to do everything in their power to transform the rights and opportunities available to women and girls in the UK and overseas. As I predicted, it has been an excellent debate. It has also been constructive and thought-provoking. It is encouraging to have so many women and men seeking to drive forward the gender equality that we all need to see for the benefit of women, families, communities and countries.

Motion agreed.

Ellison Review

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:51

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, Mrs Theresa May, in the House of Commons earlier today. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the Mark Ellison review. In addition, I would like to update the House on work to improve standards of integrity in the police. In July 2012, I commissioned Mark Ellison QC to conduct a review examining allegations of corruption surrounding the initial, deeply flawed, investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I also asked Mr Ellison to examine whether the Metropolitan Police had evidence of corruption that it did not disclose to the Macpherson inquiry.

In June last year, Peter Francis, a former special demonstration squad undercover officer, made a number of allegations about his previous role, including an allegation that he was deployed to gather evidence with which to smear the family of Stephen Lawrence. In response, I expanded the terms of reference of Mark Ellison’s review, encouraging him to go as far and wide as necessary to investigate the new claims.

The House will also be aware of Operation Herne, which was set up by the Metropolitan Police in October 2011 to investigate allegations of misconduct by undercover police officers in its former special demonstration squad—the SDS. Operation Herne is led by Derbyshire’s Chief Constable, Mick Creedon, and particular elements are overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Mick Creedon’s investigation has worked closely with Mark Ellison and will publish its own report on the allegations made by Peter Francis later today.

I will now set out the key findings of the Ellison review. The full report has been published and is available in the Vote Office. The totality of what the report shows is deeply troubling and I would like also to set out my response. I asked Mark Ellison to review and answer three key questions. First, was there evidence of corruption in the Metropolitan Police during the Lawrence investigation? Secondly, was that evidence withheld from the Macpherson inquiry? Thirdly, was inappropriate undercover activity directed at the Lawrence family?

On corruption, Ellison finds that specific allegations of corruption were made against one of the officers who had worked on the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder, Detective Sergeant John Davidson. The allegations were made by a police officer to his superiors, but were not brought to the attention of Macpherson. Ellison finds that this lack of disclosure was a “significant failure” by the Metropolitan Police.

Ellison has looked at the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s 2006 report into these allegations, as well as the Metropolitan Police’s own review in 2012. He finds that both investigations were inadequate.

Ellison also finds the Metropolitan Police Service’s record-keeping on its own investigations into police corruption a cause of real concern. Key evidence was the subject of mass shredding in 2003, and a hard drive containing some of the relevant data was discovered only in November 2013, after more than a year of the MPS searching for it. As a result of this, Ellison has serious concerns that further relevant material that would show corruption has not been revealed because it cannot be found or has been destroyed.

The other question that Mark Ellison set out to answer was whether inappropriate undercover activity had been directed at the Lawrence family. Ellison finds that SDS officers were deployed into activist groups that sought to influence the Lawrence family. On Peter Francis’s allegation that he was tasked with ‘smearing’ the Lawrence family, Ellison has found no surviving record that supports the claim. However, given the lack of written records from the era, and since such tasking would have been more likely to have been in oral rather than written form, Ellison says that he is ‘unable to reject’ the claims that Mr Francis has made.

Apart from the specific claims made by Mr Francis, Ellison reports on a separate and ‘wholly inappropriate’ use of an undercover officer during the Macpherson inquiry. Ellison finds that an officer, referred to as N81, had been deployed into one of the groups seeking to influence the Lawrence family campaign, while the Macpherson inquiry was ongoing. Ellison refers to N81 as,

‘an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS’.

As part of his deployment, N81 reported back to the SDS personal information about the Lawrence family, as well as what is described as ‘tactical intelligence’ around the inquiry. In August 1998, the SDS arranged for N81 to meet Richard Walton, then a detective inspector involved in writing the Met’s submissions to the Macpherson inquiry. SDS files record that they had a ‘fascinating and valuable exchange’.

Ellison finds that the opening of this channel of communication was ‘completely improper’. He finds no discernible public benefit to the meeting taking place, and says that had it been disclosed at the time of the inquiry,

‘it would have been seen as the MPS trying to achieve some secret advantage in the Inquiry from SDS undercover deployment’.

Ellison finds that if it had been made public in 1998, serious public disorder of the very kind so feared by the MPS might well have followed.

In addition, Ellison has reported on the SDS more widely. He comments on the extraordinary level of secrecy observed about any disclosure that might risk exposing an undercover officer. This meant that the SDS operated as if exempt from the proper rules of disclosure in criminal cases, and that there is a real potential for miscarriages of justices to have occurred. In particular, Ellison says there is an inevitable potential for SDS officers to have been viewed by those they infiltrated as encouraging, and participating in, criminal behaviour. He refers to officers in criminal trials failing to reveal their true identities, meaning that crucial information that should have been disclosed was not given to the defence and the court. He also finds that undercover officers sometimes failed to correct evidence given in court which they knew was wrong. This means that there is a chance that people could have been convicted for offences when they should not have been. We must therefore establish if there have been miscarriages of justice.

The Ellison review has also investigated the way in which Duwayne Brooks was treated by the Metropolitan Police. The House will recall that Mr Brooks was a close friend of Stephen Lawrence and was with him when he was murdered. Mark Ellison finds that the MPS’s handling of a 1993 prosecution against Mr Brooks was “unsatisfactory”, but he finds no evidence that this was a deliberate attempt to smear him. Ellison also finds evidence of inappropriate reporting on Mr Brooks from an SDS officer. This included intelligence on Mr Brooks’s relationship with the Lawrence family and on the way in which Mr Brooks intended to approach various legal proceedings, including civil action against the Met. Ellison says that this line of reporting, “should have been terminated”, but instead it continued from 1999 to 2001. Finally, Mark Ellison finds that the covert recording of Mr Brooks and his solicitor in a meeting with the MPS in May 2000, while not unlawful, was neither necessary nor justified.

The findings I have outlined today are profoundly shocking and will be of grave concern to everyone in the House and beyond. I would now like to set out what I believe needs to happen in response. The Ellison review makes a number of findings in relation to the issue of corruption. Ellison finds that there remain some outstanding lines of inquiry which could be investigated both in relation to alleged corruption by a specific officer and possibly other officers. This is of the utmost seriousness. I have asked the Director-General of the National Crime Agency to consider quickly how best an investigation can be taken forward into this aspect of Mr Ellison’s findings and report back to me.

Ellison also refers to possible links between an allegedly corrupt officer involved in the Stephen Lawrence case, Detective Sergeant Davidson, and the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan. Ellison finds that the Daniel Morgan panel may therefore uncover material relevant to the question of corruption, and so it is key that the Daniel Morgan panel continues its important work.

Operation Herne has previously found that the Home Office was instrumental in the establishment of the SDS in 1968 in the aftermath of violence at the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations in Grosvenor Square, and it has also previously found that the Home Office initially provided direct funding for the SDS. The Home Office was the police authority for the Metropolitan Police at that time, so the interests of transparency require that we all understand what role the department played. My Permanent Secretary has therefore commissioned a forensic external review in order to establish the full extent of the Home Office’s knowledge of the SDS.

In identifying the possibility that SDS secrecy may have caused miscarriages of justice, Mark Ellison recommends a further review to identify the specific cases affected. I have accepted that recommendation. Mark Ellison will lead the work, working with the CPS and reporting to the Attorney-General. That will mean that proper consideration can be given to those cases and to any implications that may arise. In doing that work, Mark Ellison and the CPS will be provided with whatever access they judge necessary to the relevant documentary evidence. Operation Herne is a criminal investigation, and it is only through a criminal investigation that criminal or misconduct charges can be brought. So it is vital that we allow Operation Herne to bring its current criminal investigations to a proper conclusion, which Chief Constable Creedon informs me should take about 12 months.

There are people inside and outside our country who seek to commit serious crimes and harm our communities, our way of life and our nation, and who wish to harm our children. It is entirely right—indeed it is a responsibility of Governments—to ensure that the police and other agencies have effective powers to tackle those threats and to ensure that robust legal frameworks exist for the use of sometimes intrusive tactics. Undercover officers, sometimes working in difficult and dangerous conditions, have helped bring criminals to justice. They have stopped bad things happening to our country.

None the less, the Ellison review reveals very real and substantial failings. The picture that emerges about the SDS from this report, and from other material in the public domain, is of significant failings of judgment, intrusive supervision and failings of leadership over a sustained period. Mark Ellison has performed a commendable public duty in revealing these issues. His report lays bare issues of great seriousness, in relation not only to Peter Francis but to the SDS more widely.

When I asked Mark Ellison to consider the SDS within the scope of his review, I asked him to tell me in his report whether he felt that a public inquiry was needed to get to the full truth. Although Ellison does not go as far as recommending a public inquiry, he is clear that in respect of the SDS in general, and the Peter Francis allegations in particular, a public inquiry might be better placed to make definitive findings.

I do not say this lightly, but the greatest possible scrutiny is now needed into what has taken place. Given the gravity of what has now been uncovered, I have decided that a public inquiry, led by a judge, is necessary to investigate undercover policing and the operation of the SDS. Only a public inquiry will be able to get to the full truth behind the matters of huge concern contained in Mark Ellison’s report.

The House will understand that an inquiry cannot be set up immediately. It must wait for the conclusion of the criminal investigation and Ellison’s further work to identify possible miscarriages of justice. It is right and proper that those legal processes are allowed to conclude first. Ellison himself identifies his further review as a priority before any public inquiry could take place. That further work will also inform the inquiry’s precise terms of reference.

As I have said, the matters that I have announced today are deeply concerning. More broadly, it is imperative that public trust and confidence in the police is maintained. I do not believe corruption and misconduct to be endemic in the police, and it is clear that the majority of police men and women conduct themselves honestly and with integrity.

In February last year I announced to the House specific measures to address corruption and misconduct, ensure greater transparency, provide clearer rules on conduct, and improve standards of professional behaviour. That work is on track. The College of Policing, which has a clear remit for enhancing police integrity, is delivering a package of measures that includes a new code of ethics. The code sets out clearly the high standards of behaviour expected from police officers. In addition, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is being expanded and emboldened so that in future it will have responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. I can tell the House that I am reflecting on whether further proposals are needed.

I also want to ensure that those who want to report corruption and misconduct are encouraged to do so. I therefore want to strengthen protections for whistleblowers in the police, and I will bring proposals to the House in due course. We must also ensure that police forces have all the capability they need to pursue corruption, so today I have asked the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to look specifically at the anti-corruption capability of forces, including professional standards departments.

Arrangements for undercover officer deployments are very different today from those in the early 1990s. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, all deployments must be authorised as both necessary and proportionate to the issue being investigated. This Government have introduced further safeguards. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners is now notified of all deployments and must approve those that last longer than 12 months. We have also increased the rank of the authorising officer. All deployments must be authorised by an assistant chief constable and those lasting longer than 12 months by a chief constable.

There also needs to be a change in culture. We need to continue the work we have already done to reform the police. From this autumn, the police will for the first time have the opportunity to bring in talented and experienced leaders from other walks of life to senior ranks. The College of Policing will provide those individuals with world-class training. Those coming in will bring a fresh perspective and approach, and will open up policing culture. I believe it is one of the most important reforms in shaping the police of the future. I have committed to funding a cadre of new direct-entrant superintendents from this autumn until spring 2018. I challenge all those forces that have not yet signed up to take the opportunity do so. It is vital that the public know that policing is not a closed shop.

We are changing the culture of the police through direct entry, the code of ethics, greater transparency and professionalisation. We are transforming the investigation of cases involving the police through reform of the IPCC. But I would like to do more. The current law on police corruption relies on the outdated common-law offence of misconduct in public office. It is untenable to be relying on such a legal basis to deal with serious issues of corruption in modern policing. So I will table amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to introduce a new offence of police corruption, supplementing the existing offence of misconduct in public office and focusing clearly on those who hold police powers.

In policing, as in other areas, the problems of the past have a danger of infecting the present and can lay traps for the future. Policing stands damaged today. Trust and confidence in the Metropolitan Police, and policing more generally, is vital. A public inquiry and the other work I have set out are part of the process of repairing the damage. Stephen Lawrence was murdered more than 20 years ago and it is deplorable that his family have had to wait so many years for the truth to emerge. Indeed, it is still emerging. Understandably, many of us thought that the Macpherson inquiry had answered all the questions surrounding the investigation into Stephen’s death but the findings I have set out today are profoundly disturbing. For the sake of Doreen Lawrence, Neville Lawrence, their family and the British public, we must act now to redress these wrongs. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

17:15

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the other place by the Home Secretary. We add our thanks to Mark Ellison QC for the investigation he carried out and for his report.

The Ellison report is devastating and disturbing. If it was not known to be a work of fact one could be forgiven for thinking that it must be a work of fiction—and pretty sensationalist fiction at that. Stephen Lawrence was murdered by racists over 20 years ago and ever since it has been a struggle for the Lawrence family, not least my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, to get justice and the truth. The Ellison report shows all too clearly why. We should all show our support for the Lawrence family in their continued determination to get both the truth and justice.

The report covers allegations of corruption by a police officer involved in the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder not being brought to the attention of the Macpherson inquiry by the Metropolitan Police. It covers inadequate investigations into those allegations by both the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Metropolitan Police’s own review. It covers key evidence being shredded, a Metropolitan Police spy in the Lawrence family camp, and a finding by Mr Ellison of being unable to reject the claims of Mr Francis that he had been tasked with smearing the Lawrence family. It also comments on the special demonstration squad—the SDS—and its officers failing to reveal their true identities in criminal trials or to correct evidence given in court which they knew was wrong. It indicates that there may have been miscarriages of justice. We support a public inquiry into the activities of the SDS and undercover policing—something we called for last year. Can the Minister confirm that, when the time comes, there will be full consultation with all relevant parties on the terms of reference of the public inquiry and the form it will take?

The Ellison report said that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that at least one of the officers involved in the Lawrence investigation acted corruptly and a full investigation is certainly needed of the outstanding lines of inquiry that the Ellison review identified. It is also important that the House and the Lawrence family should be updated on the timetable and course of this investigation. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that will be the case. Can he confirm that in pursuing all lines of inquiry, consideration will also be given to any lines that could lead to prosecutions of further suspects in Stephen Lawrence’s murder? Only recently we had a Statement about Hillsborough and the failure of the criminal justice system to get truth and justice for the families of the victims. Now we have another Statement that will only further shake confidence in the police and the criminal justice system.

The Statement concluded with the changes that this Government has made or is making to the police and policing. I do not want to comment on those changes today; they have already been the subject of much debate. The Ellison report is about culture, as was the report into Hillsborough. Changing the culture is much harder to deal with than I feel that the Statement infers, because the definition of culture within any organisation can simply be described as the way things are done in that organisation. In this instance, the culture is about why some in the police felt that they were working in an environment where it was acceptable to take the kind of actions described in the Ellison report—and, indeed, in the report on Hillsborough—and what actions or messages had been taken or given or, equally significantly, not taken or given, and from what level in the organisation, that had led them to believe that they could do what they did and not be called to account.

The overwhelming majority of police officers are dedicated and conscientious and carry out their vital work protecting our communities and bringing those who do wrong before the courts with great integrity, honesty and, at times, bravery. They will be dismayed by the findings of the Ellison report. The reputation and standing of the overwhelming majority should not be besmirched by the actions and failures of the few, but when things have gone seriously wrong, we have to pursue these matters until we get the truth and justice for those who have been so seriously wronged, not only because we should be doing it for them but because we will not restore full confidence in our police and the criminal justice system until that happens.

17:23

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support in receiving the Statement. I think that the whole House will have been shocked by the contents of the Ellison review.

I do not think that any of us here, regardless of party or even our interest in the subject matter, would underestimate the difficulties that this situation engenders. Getting the culture right, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, is a major task. He is quite right to point to the fact that the majority of police officers are engaged in their task in a true sense of public service, and we should thank them for that, but we need to have in place those vehicles which mean that when we have people who are not performing that task with honesty and integrity, we can deal with them thoroughly. The answer lies within the structure of the police itself. That is clearly the thought behind my right honourable friend’s Statement and her replies to questions in the Commons earlier today.

It is quite clear that we will continue a process of investigation into allegations of corruption and misconduct in the police. That is part of the package of measures which the Home Secretary announced. There is a more serious problem, in that existing convictions may now be insecure as a result of the findings of the report, and the Home Secretary has asked Mark Ellison to lead the investigation in this area, in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General.

I can only conclude that this is a particularly moving occasion in that we have the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, with us for the Statement, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support.

17:24

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for presenting to the House what was said by the Home Secretary this morning. On this occasion, I would like to thank the Home Secretary because it was quite difficult for her to present what the findings were this morning. When we embarked on the corruption case, it was because I always knew that there was something. It was very difficult to convince other people around me, especially other police officers and even, at times, the Home Secretary, that there was corruption at the start of Stephen’s case, as I believed. It has taken over a year for this but it has been nearly 21 years since Stephen was killed. There is the fact that we as a family had to go through all this, and still there is more to come out.

I want to say why I decided to stand up now. It is to say thanks to the Home Secretary because, without her instructing Mr Ellison to conduct his review and without his hard work in getting to this stage, we would still be wondering whether there was corruption and about the undercover policing that took place around my family. As I said, it has been 21 years of struggle and no family should have to go through that. It is the job of the justice system and the police service to give service to the whole community, not just to one section. That is what I have been campaigning on for the past 21 years. We were not asking for anything special, just for something that we should have had, just like any other citizen of this country. I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House today, and for all the support that I have had since I have been here, I thank your Lordships.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That support has been well merited. We have had to deal with some pretty difficult issues in this House but this is one of the most potent occasions that I can remember. I thank the noble Baroness for her dignity on this and on other occasions in dealing with what has been, as the Prime Minister referred to Hillsborough being, a double injustice. The Lawrence family has had to endure a chain of injustice as a result of the failure of the institutions in which we all invest so much trust to bring actual justice to her and her family. I say on behalf of the Home Secretary that I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, had an opportunity to talk to Mrs May earlier today. I am delighted that she was able to do that.

I apologise that we were not able to give the noble Baroness advance notice of this Statement. As she probably is aware, the Statement needed parliamentary privilege to be made public because of its content. I hope that noble Lords will understand that that was the right choice to make because we felt that this was a truly important opportunity to put into the public domain matters about which we believe the public should know.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as the only former senior police officer present in the House this afternoon, I personally thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, for her dedication, tenacity and dignity in pursuing these issues when, as she has already said, very few people believed her. We owe a great debt to her for pursuing the case in the way that she has done. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for the compassion that he has shown in both the delivery of his speech and the way that he has responded.

The Ellison review is very worrying. Not only did the Metropolitan Police Service fail to disclose evidence of corruption to the Macpherson inquiry, but both the MPS and the Independent Police Complaints Commission failed to reveal the evidence of corruption that this review has finally discovered. The activities of the special demonstration squad and other undercover officers in infiltrating those supporting the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks are also a very serious concern. My concern, on which perhaps the Minister can reassure me, is this: how can a judge-led public inquiry get to the truth when the Macpherson inquiry, also a judge-led public inquiry, failed to do so?

17:30

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, that is a question that of course my noble friend is right to ask. I am confident that with the joint activity of Chief Constable Mick Creedon and Mark Ellison, we now have a way to the truth. The truth may well be difficult to get to, and we know that some of the material that we would have liked to have been available to inform the judge-led inquiry will not be because it has been destroyed or lost. None the less, anyone appearing in front of a public inquiry, following the criminal prosecutions that may well follow this review and Chief Constable Creedon’s Operation Herne activity, will have to give evidence under oath. There can be no hiding place for people who have done wrong in this matter. I have confidence that we will get to the truth. The sadness in this story is that it will have taken such a long time to get there.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that anyone who speaks today following the Statement repeated by the Minister will do so with a great sense of humility. It takes nothing away from the laudable actions of the Home Secretary or Mark Ellison to say that this would not have been achieved without the courage and endurance of my noble friend Lady Lawrence and her family over a period of 21 years. It is difficult to imagine the frustration that she must have felt during that period, knowing that she was right and finding it so difficult to tackle the bureaucracies, and indeed the criminal justice system, over that period.

The deputy commissioner of the Met has just said that he was shocked, saddened and troubled by the conclusions that were put out today. So he should be. That description applies to everyone in this country who wants to see a police force that is trusted and who recognises that the vast majority of the people in the police force are committed, with integrity, to defending the people of this country. He is right to be shocked, saddened and troubled because this inquiry asked three important sets of questions: about individual corruption in the initial investigation, about the withholding of relevant material and evidence from the Macpherson inquiry, and then wider questions related to that. Those questions were troubling and the answers are even more so. I suspect, even from my brief scanning of the report, that this is not the end but only the beginning of a process of a review, a public inquiry, criminal investigations and then wider aspects. It may well be that with her persistence and endurance, my noble friend has achieved something today not only for her own family but for this country as a whole.

It is natural that most of the report will relate centrally to the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence, but there are two paragraphs that cast the issue a little wider. Perhaps I will ask a question about the case of Daniel Morgan as well. There is another family seeking the truth—in their case regarding a man who was axed through the head in a pub car park in London. There has apparently been continual obfuscation in that case as well.

It has been suggested that the allegedly corrupt policeman in the case of the initial Lawrence inquiry is in some way connected to the Daniel Morgan murder, and it is hoped that the panel looking at that will note this. Will the Minister go a little further and assure us that any information concerning the allegedly corrupt detective which has been discovered during this inquiry will fully and proactively be made available to those investigating the case of Daniel Morgan? We do not want to see another 20 years pass before another apparent miscarriage of justice is remedied.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening on this. He speaks from considerable experience of the responsibility that my right honourable friend Theresa May has in looking at this matter. He will know how seriously it has been taken.

I agree with him about the Daniel Morgan case. The Statement specifically refers to the fact that the panel should be advised and should take note, and should continue its work in the light of the allegations of corruption—which must be proved by investigation—relating to the officer who has been mentioned, and in the light of any connection there may be between the Stephen Lawrence case and the police investigation into the Daniel Morgan case.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, to many of us, 20 years seems a very long time, but the memory of that day is fresh to many noble Lords who are here today. I do not underestimate the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howell, in the early days in convincing Jack Straw to mount this major inquiry. It has continuously demonstrated the issues that are now being identified in this report.

We are still not able to answer why some police officers mounted a cover-up of this magnitude. We thank Mark Ellison and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, who has made a very positive response to the inquiry. Is there any reason why the inquiry looking at the role played by undercover agents, and the extended work of Mark Ellison and Chief Constable Creedon, could not go hand in hand? Another year of agony and waiting is a very long time. Two of the most serious allegations relate to the payment allegedly made by the father of one of the accused to the police and to the role of the IPCC, which failed to identify the wrong done by the police. Will the Minister take note that the trust of the black community has now been eroded to such an extent that any delay in getting to the truth may cause lasting damage? It is for this reason that I ask the Minister to publish the stop and search report that is now being held up at No. 10.

We ought to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, who is in her place, that we cannot bring back the precious life she has lost, but we must put right the system that has caused so much pain and distress. We ought also to say that the sentiments and humility expressed by the Minister are why the world envies the democratic process we have in this country.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend Lord Dholakia for his words. He asked specifically about stop and search. As noble Lords will know, the Home Secretary reiterated her view on stop and search in the response today. We are looking to bring forward changes in practice in this area. I agree that it is one of the elements of current policing that has led to tensions that cannot be conducive to harmonious community relations in this country.

My noble friend also asked if the two inquiries, Creedon and Ellison, could work more closely together or side by side, or be merged into one single inquiry. They are slightly different, and are doing different things. Frankly, in my view, the priority is to get the criminal prosecutions out of the way so that we can get a public inquiry in place to investigate the whole picture as quickly as possible. I know that Chief Constable Creedon and Mark Ellison have been working together. It is important that they share as much information as they are able to.

Defence: Nuclear Submarines

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, I am repeating a Statement made in the House of Commons:

“Mr Speaker, before I make my Statement, I am sure the House will want to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of the soldier from 32 Engineer Regiment who died while on duty in Helmand province yesterday as a result of non-battle-related injuries sustained in Camp Bastion. The incident is not believed to have involved any enemy action. The serviceman’s next of kin have been informed and have requested the customary 24-hour delay before further details are released.

With permission, I wish to inform the House that I have decided to refuel the nuclear reactor in HMS ‘Vanguard’, one of the United Kingdom’s four ballistic missile submarines, during its planned deep-maintenance period, which begins in 2015. This will be the second time ‘Vanguard’’s reactor has been refuelled since it entered service in 1993. I will explain to the House now why I have reached this decision to conduct a second refuelling.

Alongside the operational reactors on board our ballistic missile submarines, a prototype reactor of the same class has been running at the naval reactor test establishment at Dounreay in Scotland since 2002. Its purpose is to help us assess how the reactor cores within our submarines will perform over time. It has therefore been run for significantly longer periods and at a significantly higher intensity than those cores of the same type in our submarines, to allow us to identify early any age or use-related issues that may arise later in the lives of the operational reactor cores.

In January 2012, low levels of radioactivity were detected in the cooling water surrounding the prototype core. These low levels of radioactivity are a normal product of the nuclear reaction that takes place within the fuel, but they would not normally enter the cooling water. This water is contained within the sealed reactor circuit, and I can reassure the House that there has been no detectable radiation leak from that sealed circuit.

The independent Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency have been kept informed. When the coolant radioactivity was first detected, the reactor was shut down as a precaution. Following investigations and a series of trials, and with the agreement of the relevant regulator, the reactor was restarted in November 2012 and is continuing to operate safely. Both radiation exposure for workers at the site and discharges from the site have remained well inside the strictly prescribed limits set by the regulators. Indeed, against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s measurement scale for nuclear-related events this issue is classed as level 0, described by the agency as:

‘Below scale … No safety significance’.

The naval reactor test establishment is, and remains, a very safe and low-risk site.

But clearly, the fact that low levels of radioactivity have been detected in the coolant water means that the reactor is not operating exactly as planned. As you would expect, we have conducted extensive investigations to seek to determine how the radioactivity has entered the cooling water. We now believe that this is due to a microscopic breach in a small area of the metal cladding that surrounds one fuel element within the core of the reactor. It is not yet clear why this breach has occurred. It may be related to the age of the reactor, a function of the high-intensity use to which we have subjected the test reactor, or a random event. We do not yet know.

On current plans the Dounreay test reactor will start to be decommissioned in 2015. We are confident that the reactor can be operated safely until that date. We may decide to bring forward decommissioning if it will allow us to better understand the causes of this breach by examination of the reactor core.

This occurrence does not present any safety risk. It does, however, potentially present additional risk to future submarine availability. Consequently, I have had to consider carefully the implications for both the Vanguard-class and the Astute-class submarines, which use the same design of reactor core.

We constantly monitor our submarine reactors. We have never detected a similar occurrence to that found in the prototype reactor, and we are confident that if one did occur we would detect it straightaway.

But we now have to consider the possibility, however remote, that the useful operating life of this particular design of core may not be as long as previously expected. As a result, I have decided that, as a precautionary measure, we should refuel HMS ‘Vanguard’, the oldest SSBN, and the one with the ‘highest mileage’ on her reactor, as it were, when she enters her scheduled deep maintenance period in 2015. This is the responsible option: replacing the core on a precautionary basis at the next opportunity that arises, rather than waiting to see if the core needs to be replaced at a later date, which would mean returning ‘Vanguard’ for a period of unscheduled deep maintenance, potentially putting at risk the resilience of our ballistic missile submarine operations.

The refuelling will increase our confidence that ‘Vanguard’ will be able to operate effectively and safely until the planned fleet of Successor submarines begins to be delivered from 2028. The refuelling will be conducted within the currently planned dry-dock maintenance period for ‘Vanguard’, which starts in late 2015 and will last for around three and a half years, and is therefore expected to have no impact on deterrent operations. The additional cost of refuelling ‘Vanguard’ is estimated to be around £120 million over the next six years.

A decision on whether to refuel the next oldest submarine, HMS ‘Victorious’, when she enters her next planned deep maintenance period, will not be needed until 2018. It will be informed by further analysis of the data from the naval reactor at Dounreay and examination of the core after the reactor is decommissioned. I have decided that, in the mean time, and again on a precautionary basis, we will take the steps necessary to keep open the option of refuelling ‘Victorious’. This will include investment at Devonport and at the reactor plant at Raynesway in Derby to preserve our ability to conduct nuclear refuelling into the future. The total cost of this investment is still being scoped, but is expected to be of the order of £150 million.

Those costs will be met from existing provision for financial risk in the submarine programme budget. They represent substantially less than 10% of that risk provision and will not impact on the more than £4 billion of contingency that we are holding in the overall defence equipment plan.

The implications for the Astute-class submarine will be the subject of further analysis, particularly once we have had the opportunity to examine the core from Dounreay. But, as the Astutes are only now entering service and thus their cores have seen far less operation, a decision on whether or not to refuel any of them will not be needed for many years.

These decisions do not affect our plans for the Successor submarine that will replace the Vanguard class. Refuelling HMS ‘Vanguard’ does not enable us to further extend the overall life of the submarine, which is limited by a number of factors other than the age of the reactor, nor do they have any implications for our confidence in the reactor that we are developing for the Successor submarine, which is based on a completely different design.

Finally, the House will wish to understand that our naval reactor cores are a highly specialised, UK-bespoke maritime design and there is no read-across from this occurrence to the performance of the naval reactors operated by other countries, or indeed reactors operating in the UK civil nuclear sector.

The safety of the UK’s naval nuclear reactor at the test establishment at Dounreay and on our submarines is of critical importance to us, as is the maintenance of continuous at-sea deterrence. That is why I have taken the decision to apply the precautionary principle, even though there is no evidence at this stage that the problem detected with the test reactor is likely to present in the operational reactors. We will continue to work with the independent military and civil regulators to ensure the continuing safety of nuclear operations at Dounreay, Devonport, Faslane and at sea. The Government are committed to maintaining our nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of the UK’s sovereignty and freedom of action against threats of nuclear aggression, wherever they may come from. Our submarine-based, continuous at-sea deterrent remains the most capable and cost-effective way of doing that. The decisions that I have announced today are responsible and precautionary and will ensure our ability safely to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent into the future”.

I commend this Statement to the House.

17:49

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, like the Minister, we would like to express our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the soldier from 32 Engineer Regiment who died yesterday while on duty with our Armed Forces.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the other place by the Secretary of State. I wish to make a few points and ask one or two questions as well. The purpose of the prototype reactor at Dounreay is to identify at an early stage any age-related or use-related issues that may arise at a later stage in the lives of the operational reactor cores. To the extent that that is what appears to have happened means that the prototype reactor has served the purpose for which it has been running at a higher intensity and for much longer periods than those similar cores in our submarines. I note that the Statement says that the low levels of radioactivity detected are at the levels that would be expected, but that the issue is that they would not normally enter the cooling water which is within the sealed reactor circuit and there has been no detectable radiation leak from that sealed circuit.

The Statement also indicated that the independent Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency were kept informed and that with the agreement of the relevant regulator following trials and investigations the reactor was restarted. I take it that means that both the regulator and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency are satisfied that there are no safety issues at stake, but would be obliged if the Minister could confirm that that is the position. I note that the Statement says that we constantly monitor our submarine reactors and that we have never detected a similar occurrence to that now found in the prototype reactor.

The Statement indicates that the low level of radioactivity was detected in January 2012. It would appear that a decision was made not to advise Parliament of this at or near that time. Perhaps the Minister could say why the Government came to that conclusion, since it would have been perfectly easy to make such a Statement to Parliament then. Will the Minister say whether the Scottish Government were advised of the situation either directly or by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency? On the issue of timing, will the Minister also say why it has been decided to tell Parliament about the situation today rather than at any other particular time?

The Statement spelt out the implications for the availability of the Vanguard and Astute-class submarines, and thus the maintenance of our continuous at-sea deterrent, the decisions the Government have made to ensure the continuance of our deterrent and the additional costs that will be incurred. Will the Minister indicate whether there will be any implications beyond the submarines in question, and whether there will be any implications for the Astute construction programme?

The Statement indicates that the test reactor is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2015, but that the date may be brought forward. Will the Minister give an assurance that Parliament will be advised if that decision is made? If the test reactor is to be decommissioned shortly, then presumably the same facility will no longer be available to identify early any age or use-related issues that may arise in future operational reactor cores. How, then, will that safeguard be provided in future?

Finally, in the light of the Statement today about the prototype reactor giving advance warning of a possible issue with the operational reactors, do the Government intend to give further consideration to the effectiveness of whatever those intended safeguards may be for future operational reactor cores?

17:56

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I compliment noble Lords on considering two Statements, one after the other. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I pay tribute to the friends and family of the serviceman who sadly died in Afghanistan.

The noble Lord asked me for an assurance that there are no safety issues at stake. To the best of my knowledge we have been given assurances by the bodies that the noble Lord mentioned that there are no safety issues. They are satisfied about that.

The noble Lord asked me why we have made this Statement to Parliament only today. Against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s measurement scale for a nuclear-related event, this issue has been classed at level 0, as the Statement said. As the Statement also said, we have been working with the regulator to keep it informed. As I say, the advice that we received was that there were no safety implications. When this issue was detected, the prototype reactor was shut down to allow us to assess and confirm with the regulator that it could continue to operate safely. It was clear that workers remained safe and the local community was not at risk, and it has since been restarted. No issues have been identified on “Vanguard”, which continues to operate safely, and there are no imminent safety issues. Safety is always our highest priority. I can assure the noble Lord that if anything significant comes up about this issue, we will keep the House regularly informed.

The noble Lord asked whether we had discussed this issue with the Scottish Government. We informed the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in 2012, given its responsibility for regulating discharge from the site. As I said, this was a level 0 issue and there is no requirement to notify such issues. The prototype core in Dounreay comprises a very small area and is not operating as well as it could. This is allowing small quantities of radioactive material to enter another sealed—I stress “sealed”—part of the reactor. This is not a leak from the reactor. Workers remain safe and the local community is not at risk. We made the Scottish Minister for Environment aware of our decision before the Secretary of State gave his Oral Statement to the House earlier today.

The noble Lord asked whether the continuous at-sea deterrent was at risk. The answer is no. The decisions announced today are responsible and precautionary, and will help assure our ability safely to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent into the future. “Vanguard” was due to go into refit anyway, so they have not yet delayed submarine availability.

The noble Lord asked about the Astute class. At this time there is no impact on the Astute programme. We have thoroughly re-examined the reactors while they are being built. I should point out that this was a microscopic breach in a test reactor that had been hammered, for want of a better word. It does not mean that it will happen in other reactors in submarines. The issue has never occurred previously on a UK naval nuclear reactor, and it has not occurred on one of our other submarines. We are confident that if it did occur we would spot it quickly and be able to take appropriate action. I was unable to jot down the noble Lord’s other question but I will write to him.

18:01

[Lord Roper (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I add our condolences to the family of the soldier of 32 Engineer Regiment who died yesterday.

The matter of the Statement is obviously serious and the Government have been absolutely right to act in accord with the precautionary principle. I wonder whether my noble friend can say something about the possible implications for the other two Vanguard-class submarines. Is there any question of their having to be recalled at some stage and, if so, what would be the further cost? If that were to occur, would there be any other delays in the totality of the programme?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, to answer my noble friend’s last question first, there will be no delay. This is a decision that we would take in 2018 and depends on the research that we are able to carry out into the prototype reactor core. I thank my noble friend for his support for the Statement.

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, I believe that this proposed refuelling is an entirely sensible course of action to ensure that HMS “Vanguard” can meet her final decommissioning date in the late 2020s. However, I should like to press the Minister and to follow up and expand on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Can the Minister absolutely assure us that the refit length will not be extended as the result of this refuelling and thereby potentially compromise the operating cycle that allows us to maintain continuous at-sea deterrence? Can he say whether the successor submarine—I emphasise the fact that there is a successor to the Vanguard-class submarine—will not be affected by this particular reactor issue?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, as a former commanding officer of HMS “Superb” speaks with more authority than anyone in this House on nuclear-powered submarines. I listened very carefully to what he said and thank him for his support on this issue. The Government are committed to CASD and I can confirm that the decision to refuel HMS “Vanguard” will not affect our posture and can be contained within the refit timescales. It is a precautionary measure timed to coincide with the planned refit period precisely to avoid any impact on CASD. Neither will it affect the successor programme.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my condolences on the events in Helmand province. It is a very sad announcement but we have grown used to it in the past and such events are rare at the present moment.

I very much support the Government in the precautions that they have taken here. They are absolutely right to err on the side of caution, however inconvenient or costly that might be. The safety of submariners and the staff at Dounreay, Devonport and Faslane must be of paramount importance. The House will also be reassured that this announcement will not affect the four submarine continuous at-sea deterrent patrols. Does he not agree that the events of recent days show clearly why nuclear deterrence is still crucial in the world today? Perhaps I may follow up one of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked. Can the Minister confirm that, without the test reactor at HMS “Vulcan” in Dounreay, the new reactors will involve sufficient assurance to allay any public or indeed private concerns that might exist?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I missed the noble Lord’s last word. What was the word that he used after “sufficient”?

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen]

I asked whether the new reactors would involve sufficient assurance to allay any public or private concerns that might now exist.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord for his support. As he said, this is a precautionary measure. Although this is not a safety issue, obviously the safety of the civilian workers and of our crews is very much in our minds. The noble Lord mentioned the events of the past few days. There is no current nuclear threat to the UK, but we can never discount the possibility that one could re-emerge in the future. I can vigorously give the noble Lord the assurance that he asked for.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)]

My Lords, since the naval reactor test establishment has been described as being very safe and a low-risk site, and since low levels of radioactivity were detected in the cooling water surrounding the prototype core, and that was done, as I understand it, at the Dounreay site, why is it being decommissioned? There does not appear to be provision for reinstating similar testing facilities at Devonport or at the reactor plant at Raynesway in Derby, which were comparable to those that were successful in detecting this fault at Dounreay. This will have an impact on the local economy. The decommissioning will be expensive in that it has to be reconstructed elsewhere, whereas there is a team of highly skilled operators at the existing site. In the light of the non-disclosure or unawareness of what caused this fault, I do not fully understand from the Statement why such a step is being taken.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, my noble friend asked me why it is being decommissioned and what is going to happen afterwards. I assure him that this has been very carefully thought out. I asked this question earlier of the people who briefed me. The answer is very technical and sensitive, and it may be better if I write to my noble friend. The short answer is that there has been so much technical progress that people can learn in much quicker and better ways than in the way things were done at Dounreay, but I am happy to write to my noble friend because it is a very important question.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Since 1968, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we have had a ballistic missile submarine deployed in the vast expanse of the north Atlantic carrying the nation’s deterrent—our ultimate and final insurance policy. Of course, SSBNs are amazingly complex bits of kit. Successive Governments and the Royal Navy have managed to ensure that they have operated safely and that they have had continual operational readiness. This announcement continues that tradition. Clearly there is no risk to anyone at all. That is quite clear from the announcement. It is quite clear from what has been spotted that there is no risk at all, so safety is fine and is paramount. Yet the Government have ensured that looking to the future they will maintain continuous at-sea deterrents. I congratulate them on making that decision, which no doubt was quite a difficult decision to make.

As always, there will of course be people, some of whom will be in Scotland and perhaps involved with Alex Salmond and his people, who will start muttering, “Gosh, nuclear is so unsafe. Isn’t this awful?”, even though there is no risk. All I would say to them is, “Let us take the past 50 years of operating nuclear submarines in the Royal Navy and compare the number of accidents and deaths in the oil and gas industry with the number of deaths involved with Royal Navy nuclear submarines”. I know that the answer for Royal Navy nuclear submarines is zero. I do not think that the other side could make that claim. It is important always to remember that, because a lot of nonsense is talked about this issue. Again, in this decision we are very safe.

Does the noble Lord agree that what has happened is a stark example of why we need four boats to maintain continuous at-sea deterrents, because of unforeseen and unexpected things? Does he also agree that it is a very good reason why there should be no further delay whatever in terms of introducing the next, replacement deterrent submarines?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, that is a lot to absorb but I agree very much with what the noble Lord said. As a former First Sea Lord, he was well aware of the success of CASD. He said that these are very sophisticated bits of kit. I understand that nuclear-powered submarines are the most sophisticated kit that humans have ever made. I assure him that safety is always uppermost in our minds even if it is expensive. He also mentioned the Scottish issue. Since 1963, the Ministry of Defence has operated more than 80 nuclear reactor cores without accident. As he said, nuclear-powered submarines remain the best way to deliver our nuclear deterrent. We should not allow a vested interest to derail the defence of our nation by manipulating today’s decision. The nuclear deterrent remains the ultimate guarantor of our nation’s security.

The noble Lord, Lord West, also asked about four boats. That decision will be made in 2016. I assure him that there is no delay in the programme.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I add my sadness to that expressed by other noble Lords as to the death of the British soldier in Afghanistan. I should like to ask the Minister about the design authority with regard to the nuclear reactor in all our submarines. Who holds that design authority? Presumably, that company was also responsible for the manufacture of the prototype. Will it be continuously involved in the work that my noble friend has described?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My noble friend has asked a very good question. Rolls-Royce is the MoD’s technical authority for the design of reactors and the manufacture of the cores. It has delivered reactor cores for UK submarines for more than 50 years. We are confident that it will deliver the cores we require in the future. There is no effect on jobs at the Rolls-Royce facility in Derby.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

The operational questions arising have largely have been covered by my noble friend Lord West and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. In more immediate terms, the concern obviously will be the safety of personnel at Dounreay and on the submarines. Although it has been deemed that there is no risk and that the reactor, with all its accoutrements, has been restarted, will he confirm, first, that there will be continuous monitoring of a specific nature at Dounreay? Secondly, even though there is no risk discerned in the test reactor at Dounreay, will he confirm that there is even less risk on the submarines themselves; and that there has been no evidence that the same phenomena have occurred on any submarines, and that that will be monitored? Thirdly, will he confirm that the refuelling will take place at Devonport rather than anywhere else?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, it will take place at Devonport in Plymouth, yes. There is no risk, I can assure the noble Lord, to the workers or the local community up at Dounreay. The naval reactor test establishment remains a very safe and low-risk site. Workers remain safe and the local community and environment is not at risk. There has been a very small increase in the radioactivity of the coolant in the sealed reactor circuit. This has not gone outside the sealed unit and it has certainly not gone into the atmosphere. This refuelling is a prudent, pre-emptive and purely precautionary measure and it has been carried out to manage risk to the operational submarine programme and not to mitigate any safety issue.

As far as any risk to the submarine crews is concerned, the safety of our nuclear submarines is not in doubt and we have not identified any issues with our operational submarines. The refuelling of HMS “Vanguard” will begin in late 2015 as a precautionary measure during her scheduled deep maintenance period. If a leak occurred on a submarine, it would be detected immediately.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse the words of my noble friend Lord West about the importance of having four SSBMs rather than three, which has been brought out by this incident. Had we only three boats, as people more out of ignorance of the situation than anything else have sometimes urged upon Governments of both parties, and were we then faced—which we have not been on this occasion, mercifully although we might have been—with a need for an emergency refuelling, continuous at-sea deterrent would almost certainly have been threatened.

I would have had the ministerial responsibility for this matter had it arisen in my time in office and, on the basis of the facts set out in the Statement this afternoon—the House will be grateful for the fullness of the explanations given by the noble Lord—I think that the Government have done absolutely the right thing. However, I am mystified by why the decision has been taken now rather than two years ago. Surely, once it was clear that the prototype had this important fault, it should have been clear at that point that when the first opportunity arose to do a deep refit of the oldest submarine HMS “Vanguard” it would have been sensible to have taken the opportunity to refuel. That has been done now. But surely that could have been seen to be the right solution two years ago, or 18 months ago when matters had been thoroughly worked through in terms of the conclusions from the leak that has been established in the prototype. Why the delay? That is the one thing that mystifies me about this whole incident.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, taking the first part of the noble Lord’s question, nuclear deterrent remains the ultimate guarantor of our nation’s security. The Government’s policy is clear: we will maintain a continuous at-sea deterrent and proceed with plans to build a new fleet of submarines. Final decisions on successive submarines and the numbers, which the noble Lord mentioned, will be taken in 2016.

The noble Lord asked why there was a delay. I set out an answer in some detail to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

House adjourned at 6.18 pm.