House of Commons

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 18 June 2014

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

1. What work her Department is undertaking in Syria; and if she will make a statement.

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

May I start by offering the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is unable to attend questions today as he is overseas on departmental business?

The UK’s total funding for Syria and the region is now £600 million. To date, the Department for International Development has allocated just under £250 million to partners working in Syria, which has helped hundreds of thousands in dire need of assistance. A significant element of UK aid inside Syria is now being delivered by non-governmental organisations directly from neighbouring countries across Syria’s borders.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister will recognise that the UK is making a significant contribution to the Syrian crisis, yet UN and other agencies estimate that there is still a shortfall of around $5 billion in required investment. What steps can she take to encourage partner agencies and other countries to step up to the plate and contribute as well?

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. We can be proud of the Government’s role; we are the second largest country donor providing assistance. He is right that we need to see more countries in the region and internationally stepping up to the plate and putting their hands in their pockets to help to provide assistance to those in the region who are in such dire need.

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

What support is being given to British nationals, as well as their families, who have been injured in Syria in support of relief action?

[Justine Greening]

There is always consular assistance for those who have been injured overseas. I am not aware of any British nationals being injured, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that a number of humanitarian workers have been injured and—I think I am right in saying—more than 40 killed while delivering aid to people inside Syria.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the letter that the Secretary of State sent to me on the subject of Syria. She referred to the demands of the Security Council to grant rapid, safe and unhindered access to those in need inside Syria and to the continued use of siege and starvation tactics as a weapon of war. What exactly are we doing at the Security Council to try to resolve this impasse? I know her Department is doing various other things, but we really ought to be pushing the Security Council hard.

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Lady is right. I discussed this matter with Baroness Amos, who heads up the UN agency tackling humanitarian assistance. It has now presented its third report to the UN Security Council, outlining grave concerns about the Syrian regime’s defiance, in many respects, of the resolution on allowing humanitarian access. Our role is to continue to push and to look at ways we can remove some of the barriers that the regime is putting in place as excuses to stop aid getting through.

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

As the conflict in Syria spills over into Iraq, the Red Crescent estimates that up to 500,000 additional people may have been displaced from their homes. What are the Government doing to anticipate and resource the emerging humanitarian needs in the region?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is quite right, and nearly 250,000 Syrian refugees have crossed the border into Iraq, to which we were already providing some support. She may be aware that I have announced an initial £3 million of humanitarian support. In addition, I am proud that a DFID team was one of the first on the ground, having been sent out last Thursday to assess need and work directly with UN agencies setting up the camps that are now required.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The Syrian conflict is in its fourth year, and we have seen the re-emergence of polio, the use of chemical weapons and the slaughter of innocents, with entire cities under siege. With the world’s focus rightly on neighbouring Iraq, this is a conflict that still demands our attention. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of proposals from the normally recalcitrant Russians to open four border crossings to help the vast numbers of people in need of humanitarian aid?

[Justine Greening]

We have to ensure that the Syrian crisis does not become a forgotten crisis and that the refugees and those affected in Syria are not forgotten in the midst of the crisis now emerging in Iraq. In response to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I alluded to independent monitors checking aid in cross-border areas, which is one of the issues on which we are looking to work with the Russians. One of the issues raised by the Syrian Government is that they do not always believe that cross-border aid is inappropriate—in fact, they do not agree with it. We have to push for cross-border aid, because there is no other way of getting to the people in need inside Syria.

[Mr Murphy]

Some people who fled the Syrian conflict into Iraq are, heartbreakingly, now fleeing the Iraq crisis back into Syria. Some 200,000 Syrians have fled into Kurdish Iraq and now 300,000 internally displaced persons have fled the ISIS advance into Iraqi Kurdistan, so what assessment has the Secretary of State and her Department made of the additional humanitarian support now required by the Kurdish authorities to deal with this double crisis that they now face?

[Justine Greening]

Around 95% of the Syrian refugees who had fled into Iraq are themselves Kurdish in origin. In total over recent weeks, around 1 million people have been displaced within Iraq itself. As I set out earlier, a three-person team went out last Thursday: two of them are working directly with the Government of Kurdistan to discover what we can do to help that regional Government to respond; the other is working with the UN to help set up the camps. As with the refugees from the crisis in Syria, most displaced people are staying in host communities rather than in camps, which are very limited in the facilities they can provide.

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

2. What her health priorities are in discussions on the post-2015 development framework.

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

The UK objective for post-2015 is to agree a simple, inspiring, measurable set of goals centred on eradicating extreme poverty that should finish the job that the millennium development goals started. The goal should be outcome focused, measuring reductions in preventable death and disease and giving women and girls sexual and reproductive health rights

[Sandra Osborne]

Despite progress on reducing maternal mortality and promoting universal access to reproductive health, this remains the slowest of the millennium development goals. Will the Secretary of State explain why DFID supported fewer women to give birth with the support of nurse, midwife or doctor in 2012-13 than it did in 2011-12?

[Justine Greening]

Overall, I think we can be proud of the fact that we are the first Government to live up to the commitment to spend 0.7% of our gross national income on international development, and that includes doing more work on health. We are, for example, increasing our spend on key health areas such as malaria, pledging up to £1 billion of support to the global health fund. I can assure the hon. Lady that tackling maternal mortality remains a core part of my Department’s work and that we are pressing for a comprehensive health goal and target as part of the post-2015 framework.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware that HIV/AIDS remains one of the world’s greatest public health challenges. While over 10 million people from low to middle-income countries are receiving antiretroviral treatment, about another 20 million are not. What is the right hon. Lady doing about this issue, and how will it be taken up in the millennium development goals process?

[Justine Greening]

I can very clear that we want to see an HIV, TB and malaria goal as being part of the health goal; we want to see specific targets on tackling those diseases. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the incidence of HIV has grown, largely because people are now able to survive it. We must work harder to ensure that we reduce incidence and do more on prevention.

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

How does the Secretary of State intend to achieve these health goals when a third of the health care delivery projects that started on her Government’s watch are falling short? Schemes in Montserrat, Uganda, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Somalia—schemes totalling nearly £0.5 billion—are failing. What does she intend to do to transform those projects and prove that universal coverage is not only desirable but achievable?

[Justine Greening]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is setting out just a small number of the many health programmes that the Department has under way. One of the key things I have done over the past year has been to strengthen our programme management and increase the focus on getting results for the Department. I can assure him that there is a heavy focus on achieving all the goals that we set ourselves. We set out the results very clearly when we came into government, because we felt that there was not a clear enough focus on impact under the last Government.

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

3. What work her Department is undertaking in support of governance, the rule of law and building stable economic institutions.

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

My Department supports governance and the rule of law by supporting democratic governance, tackling corruption, increasing tax revenues, improving security and justice for all and strengthening civil society. My Department helps to build stable economic institutions by reducing barriers to doing business and supporting property rights.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she say a little more about how she is working through the Commonwealth on sub-Saharan Africa and particularly Nigeria to promote those aims?

[Justine Greening]

We are doing a significant amount of work in Commonwealth countries and indeed through the Commonwealth. In recent weeks, of course, we have seen some challenges to stability in northern Nigeria, and most of our work in the country is focused on the north. We are one of the few donors delivering education—in the long term, of course, one of the best ways of achieving stability.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Yemen is a fragile state that faces daily attacks from al-Qaeda on the south Arabian peninsula. What support is the Government providing to help it to build up its institutions?

[Justine Greening]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have provided various forms of support in recent years. Some of it has, of course, been humanitarian, but we are also providing political and technical advice. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State spends a great deal of time in Yemen and the surrounding region personally ensuring that our relationship is not only strong but productive. We hope that, with a new Government in place, Yemen can achieve the reforms that it needs to achieve to stabilise its economy, and, in doing so, can embark on a better development track for the future.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

In unstable regions, much good work can be undone by conflict. South Sudan is a new nation. How are we ensuring that our development efforts there are built on firm foundations of good governance?

[Justine Greening]

We have an incredibly difficult job to do in Sudan. Again, much of our work has been focused on humanitarian support. We have tried to strengthen institutions as well, but I think we all recognise that, given the political situation, we face a real challenge and a long-term job. Ultimately, political leadership will be needed in South Sudan itself.

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

DFID provides support and assistance on the ground in Colombia, where state forces continue to ride roughshod over human rights and extra-judicial killings of civil activists are taking place. Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Colombian Government about human rights abuses, and will she specifically raise our concerns about Martha Diaz and David Flórez?

[Justine Greening]

I am sure that the Foreign Office will note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and will indeed make representations. As he knows, DFID itself does not have a country programme in Colombia, but I will pass on his comments to the Foreign Office.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

4. If she will make it her policy to provide targeted aid for residents of Cuba.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

DFID has no plans to establish a bilateral aid programme with Cuba. We provide assistance through our share of contributions to multilateral agencies, and the British embassy provides some funding to promote economic development.

[Michael Fabricant]

Look, I understand why we do not wish to aid Cuba generally—it still has many political prisoners, for instance—but the Minister knows as well as I do that it has a good national health service for its citizens, which, because of a lack of foreign exchange, is unable to buy modern drugs. Surely we can target aid in that area without actually assisting the Cuban Government.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am afraid that we cannot do as my hon. Friend wishes. We carried out bilateral and multilateral aid reviews to help us to determine where our aid was best focused, and the results did not include Cuba, so we have no plans to give it any bilateral aid.

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

5. What programmes are sponsored by her Department in Thailand to reintroduce democracy and support the rule of law.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

The United Kingdom has been encouraging commitment to democracy and rule of law in Thailand following the coup. The Government are liaising closely with EU partners and others on a united response. DFID does not have a programme in Thailand, because it is an upper middle-income country.

[Mr Raab]

The Oxford development economist Paul Collier has charted the way in which aid can, in fact, increase the risk of a military coup. What action is DFID taking, bilaterally or through multilateral engagement with Thailand, to send the unequivocal message that democratic governance must be restored?

[Lynne Featherstone]

As I have said, DFID does not have a bilateral aid programme in Thailand, but the UK is working closely with EU and others in the international community, including our ambassador in Thailand, to secure commitment to the values of democracy and the rule of law in the interests of Thailand’s peace and stability.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, much concern has been expressed about arbitrary detentions and restrictions on the media and the right to protest in Thailand. While I appreciate that DFID does not fund Thailand directly and has no aid programme in the country, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), said on 25 May that owing to the current political situation there, the Government would have to review the scope of their co-operation with it. Was DFID involved in those discussions?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We are particularly concerned by the restrictions on freedom of assembly, association and expression, and by the large number of arbitrary detentions. However, this is an FCO lead, so we do not make those particular representations.

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

The Minister has indicated that we do not have an aid programme with Thailand, but are the Government reviewing aid programmes in the general region, as they may be affected by the coup in Thailand and people moving from Thailand across the border?

[Lynne Featherstone]

We obviously keep a watching brief on the region, and in fact at the moment it is the other way round, because some funding from our Burmese programme is supporting the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. At the moment, from what we can see the coup does not seem to be having any impact outside the country.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to end female genital mutilation worldwide.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

Female genital mutilation is violence against women and girls. The UK has made the largest donor commitment ever to help end FGM, with a flagship programme of £35 million in at least 17 countries. The Prime Minister will host a summit in July that will step up global efforts to end both FGM and child, early and forced marriage within a generation.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her efforts on this. Does she agree with many of the people who have given evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs saying that we should ensure all children in the UK are taught about FGM and the fact that it is not allowed, and that we should not allow parents to take their children out of such classes, because children whose parents would not want them to know are exactly the children we need to target?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend. He raises a critical issue. When I went to Burkina Faso, one of the leading countries in Africa in tackling and reducing FGM, I visited a school to watch an FGM lesson. It is part of the curriculum there, and I do believe that this needs to be a required part of the curriculum here in high-prevalence areas. In a recent speech on development, the Deputy Prime Minister made a commitment both to this and to giving support to the front-line professionals, because we know from the helpline of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that professionals need support and training.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that female genital mutilation is part of a much wider issue of cultures where gender equality is not recognised, and will she take every opportunity possible when contacting countries where this applies to further the cause of gender equality?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I can assure her that I do take every opportunity to raise the issue, because these social norms, which oppress and suppress women and have been going for 4,000 years, are really because of women’s low status in the world in terms of rights and of voice, choice and control over their own lives.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

7. What effect the formation of the new Government in Nepal will have on her Department’s programmes in that country.

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

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for International Development visited Nepal in February, where he met with Mr Sushil Koirala, now the Nepalese Prime Minister, and assured him of the UK’s ongoing commitment to development. We will continue to support the new Government to improve the lives of the poorest people in Nepal.

[David Morris]

Will my right hon. Friend please provide an update on her good works in Nepal so far?

[Justine Greening]

It is clear that a new constitution is an essential step in ensuring political stability. The UK provided support to Nepal’s elections last year, and we stand ready to provide continued support to the constitution-drafting process. We are also encouraging the Nepalese Government and political parties to hold local elections, and that sits alongside the work we are doing on livelihoods and education and basic service provision.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on my Department’s response to the situation in Iraq. DFID rapidly deployed a team of humanitarian assessors to Erbil in Iraq last Thursday. On Saturday, I announced a £3 million package of UK relief comprising £2 million via the rapid response facility mechanism to help tens of thousands of Iraqi women, men and children get clean water, medicine and sanitation and £1 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide mobile protection teams to support vulnerable women and girls.

[Stephen Phillips]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the very serious outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic virus in west Africa. What steps is her Department taking to assist Governments in the region to deal with this very serious issue?

[Justine Greening]

I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Department for International Development is closely monitoring the situation. He has raised this question with me in the past. We are finalising funding to the World Health Organisation to respond to the national Ebola emergency response proposal through training, the use of surveillance tools, the purchase of infection control equipment and the provision of global expertise. We are also working with non-governmental organisation partners to make sure that people are well aware of the outbreak that is taking place in the region. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is quite a lot of noise. Let us have a bit of courteous attention to a Member of 27 years standing, Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T3. The Newport NATO summit is likely to be an event of great political significance. What work is the Secretary of State doing in her Department to ensure that the important issues of international development are prominent on the agenda?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a pertinent question. Over recent years, we have really understood just how stability in countries is critical for development to take place. If we look at the millennium development goals, we can see that none has been achieved by countries in conflict. It is why we increasingly work with not only the Foreign Office but the Ministry of Defence in helping to have programmes that can give us the best prospect of stability.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T2. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an update on DFID’s work in Nepal and on what the Government are doing to help with its infrastructure and to support its economic development?

[Justine Greening]

The UK is building vital new roads and bridges and helping Nepal to bring in foreign investment, including on hydro power. In the past three years, UK aid has created 150,000 jobs and built or maintained more than 4,000 km of roads in Nepal.

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

T5. Is it still part of DFID’s strategy to try to reduce opium production in Helmand province, and if it is, can we have an update on the progress?

[Justine Greening]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion for ensuring that our development work in Afghanistan is effective. He will be aware that we have done a significant amount of work in relation to livelihoods and economic development both in Kabul and, critically, out in Helmand. I am happy to write to him with further details on that.

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

T4. I warmly welcome the allocation of £3 million by the rapid response facility to help those who are fleeing persecution in Iraq. Will that money be used to help those who are not only fleeing within the country but crossing national frontiers?

[Justine Greening]

The £3 million will predominantly be used to support Iraqi refugees who are now displaced by the fighting. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are also providing support to Syrian refugees who have crossed over into Iraq as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr David Hanson. He is not here.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

T6. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State update us on the welcome announcement that the green investment bank will now work with the International Climate Fund to bring expertise to developing countries, which will be an important target for export markets for UK plc?

[Justine Greening]

I hope that we can all agree that the green investment bank, which was established by this Government, has been an excellent way of not only tackling our own domestic issues around climate change but, increasingly, looking at how we can use that institution to further our development aims in that regard too.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

T8. With an estimated 9 million people displaced from their homes in Syria, is it right that under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme just 24 Syrians have come to the UK in the past six months?

[Justine Greening]

This is an important scheme that enables us not just to provide support to people in the region—the overwhelming majority of them are still there—but to be one of those countries that provides a haven for people who need to be removed from the region and supported here in the UK. I am proud that we have that programme in place. We expect several hundred to benefit from it, and I can assure the hon. Lady that it is up and running.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T10. Given that the unity Government of Palestine have unequivocally endorsed the Quartet principles, will the Secretary of State confirm that she will robustly continue DFID’s financial support to them, or even increase it?

[Justine Greening]

We will continue to provide support to the Palestinian people. The UK has welcomed the formation of the new interim technocratic Government. We have also made it clear that our continued support for that new Government will rest on their commitment to the principles of non-violence and their acceptance of all previous agreements and obligations, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

T9. Because of the Government’s inconsistent policies, Britain’s relationships with Rwanda are fraying. What is being done to rebuild those relationships, particularly given the problems in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

I returned from Rwanda just over a week ago and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that relations are good. Rwanda is an exemplar in terms of development, but I had to raise the issue of political space and other human rights issues.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 June.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Kevin Brennan]

I spoke yesterday to my constituent, Delyth Thompson, who, like the constituents of many colleagues across the House, was anxious because her son’s passport had not arrived on time. Given the dreadful level of service she described to me, she was quite shocked to find that the Passport Office returned a surplus of £73 million. What does it say about the values of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government that the Chancellor is actually making a profit out of our constituents’ misery?

[The Prime Minister]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, and any other constituent of any MP in this House—because this is an important issue; it is a difficult issue and we must get it right—is that anyone who needs to travel within the next week and who has waited more than three weeks through no fault of their own, will be fast-tracked for no extra cost so that they can get their passport in time. I do not want anyone to miss their holiday because of these difficulties. We have seen a 15% increase over the last week in the number of passports being processed, but we need to go faster and we need to hire more people. The Home Secretary will be updating the House on that this afternoon.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing sentiment that, as the publication of the Chilcot report has been so long delayed, the ancient but still existing power of Back Benchers to commence the procedure of impeachment should now be activated to bring Mr Tony Blair to account for allegedly misleading the House on the necessity of the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

[The Prime Minister]

I would say to my right hon. Friend and Father of the House that it is important that we see the results of the Iraq inquiry. It has had access to all of the papers, all of the officials and all of the Ministers. Frankly, if the Iraq inquiry had started when the Conservative party and indeed the Liberal Democrats suggested it, the report would have been published by now. But Opposition Members, including, incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition, voted against starting the Iraq inquiry on no fewer than four occasions.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

All of us will have been appalled by the images of the brutal aggression of ISIS that has spread across Iraq, terrorising its citizens and undermining its fragile democracy. Iraq is today facing fundamental threats to its integrity, security and stability. Will the Prime Minister provide the House with his latest assessment of the situation in Iraq? Following the welcome appearance yesterday of Prime Minister Maliki with Kurdish and Sunni representatives, calling for national unity, what more does he believe can be done to encourage a more inclusive and representative Government, which is essential for the future of Iraq?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right that one of the crucial things that needs to happen is for the Iraqi Government to take a more inclusive approach towards Shi’a, Sunni and Kurd, as the important constituent parts of Iraq. I can tell the House that the latest reports indicate that fighting is continuing on a front from Samarra to Baqubah; that the Baiji oil refinery in Tikrit is under attack by ISIL; and that the Peshmerga are fighting ISIL in Diyala province. But meanwhile there is this large-scale recruitment not only of Shi’a militias but also of other young recruits to the Iraqi armed forces, and it is vital that that proceeds and that ISIL is pushed back by the Iraqis. The absolutely key thing to recognise here is that when there is this combination of poor governance, of ungoverned spaces and of support for extremism, that provides an opportunity for the terrorist, and we have to address this on each of those three fronts, supporting the Iraqi Government with the work that they need to do.

[Edward Miliband]

I agree with the Prime Minister. This crisis, though, is not affecting just Iraq, but has consequences for the whole world, including the UK. Can he tell us the extra measures that the Government are taking and contemplating, including through the Border Agency and the Home Office, to ensure that British nationals in the region cannot return here and engage in violent extremism or terrorism, and can he say what the Government are doing to prevent people in this country from becoming radicalised and travelling to the region in order to fight?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe this is the correct focus. As I said yesterday, our approach to this issue must be based on a hard-headed assessment of our national interest. Most important of all is how to keep our citizens safe here at home. The Leader of the Opposition asks specifically about the actions we are taking. We will be legislating in this Session of Parliament to make the planning of terrorist attacks overseas illegal here in the UK. We will be making sure that our security, intelligence and policing resources are focused particularly on that part of the world and the danger of British people travelling there, becoming radicalised and returning to the UK. We have already stopped a number of people travelling, we have taken away passports, including using the new powers that we legislated for in the previous Parliament, and we will continue to do everything we can to keep our country safe.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister will have our full support in doing so, and if there are further measures, we will look at those.

I want to talk about Iran and its role in this crisis. We support the announcement made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary of the plans to reopen the British embassy in Tehran and the dialogue started by the Foreign Secretary with his counterpart, but the challenge we face in Iraq is that although Iran opposes ISIS, the Iranian regime in the past has shown that it does not support a vision for an inclusive and democratic state in Iraq. So can the Prime Minister give the House his current assessment—and that of the Government—of the willingness and intent of the current Iranian regime to play a constructive rather than a divisive role in helping to resolve the Iraqi crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for the cross-party approach on this and will make two points. It is important to re-engage in dialogue with Iran, and that is why we are planning to reopen the embassy. It should be done on a step-by-step basis. As I said, it should be done with a very clear eye and a very hard head because we know of the appalling things that happened to our embassy back in 2011. To people who say there is some sort of inconsistency in having dialogue with Iran while at the same time recognising how much it has done to destabilise the region, I would say that we need to take a consistent approach with all the players in the region, which is to say that we support the voices of moderation and the voices that support democracy, inclusive government and pluralistic politics under the rule of law. We need the Iranian Government to play that role, as well as everybody else.

[Edward Miliband]

The broader context to this is, of course, the wider Sunni/Shi’ite schism across the region. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is not just Iran, but other significant countries across the region that have a huge responsibility not to take steps that will further fuel the sectarian conflict? That includes support for extremist groups, including ISIS. Will the Prime Minister make it clear in his conversations with all countries in the region that that will simply fuel the conflict?

[The Prime Minister]

Whatever we are looking to do, whether it is to support the voices of moderation and democracy in Syria, whether it is to try to help the Iraqi Government close down the ungoverned space in Iraq, or whether it is in the conversations that we have with other regional players, it is very important that we are consistent in that engagement and that we oppose extremism, terrorism and violence. Let me reassure the House that when it comes to the support that we have given to rebels in Syria, we do that through the official Syrian opposition, who are committed to those things and not to extremism, violence and terrorism. Our engagement with the Saudi Arabians, the Qataris, Emiratis and others is all on the basis that none of us should be supporting those violent terrorists or extremists.

[Edward Miliband]

I want to ask about the humanitarian situation in the region and the consequences of what is happening in Iraq. We have British allies in the region, such as Jordan, that are already dealing with a huge refugee crisis, and events in Iraq threaten to make that worse. Britain is doing a good job of providing welcome humanitarian support for those in the refugee camps, but there are more refugees outside the camps than inside the camps. What further practical measures does the Prime Minister believe we can take to support countries such as Jordan and Lebanon that are affected by this crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me update the House. When it comes to the Syrian refugee situation, we remain the second largest bilateral aid donor anywhere in the world, which is something I think Britain can be proud of. We are providing shelter, food, clothing and support for the millions of people who have been made homeless by the conflict. When it comes to supporting neighbouring countries, we have given some direct help to Jordan, because the increase in the population of Jordan, and indeed of Lebanon, is equivalent—thinking about it in our own terms—to almost 15 million coming to the UK. In terms of the humanitarian situation emerging in Iraq as a result of ISIL’s murderous regime, we have already announced £3 million of humanitarian aid for people who have been displaced in the region, and I can announce today that we will be increasing that to £5 million. Yet again, Britain will be playing its role for those who, through no fault of their own, have been displaced by conflict and face a very difficult situation.

[Edward Miliband]

I welcome that and hope that the Prime Minister will continue to look at what more can be done for those outside the camps and to support the infrastructure in countries such as Jordan.

Finally, everything we are seeing across the region begs a fundamental question about whether it can develop a politics where people live alongside each other as citizens, rather than dividing along sectarian, ethnic or religious lines. Does he agree with me that while we can and should provide assistance to make that happen, in the end it is the political will of those in the region that will determine whether that happens?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a mistake to believe that the only answer to these problems is the hard attack of direct intervention, which we know can create problems in itself, but I also disagree with those people who think that this has nothing to do with us and that if they want to have some sort of extreme Islamist regime in the middle of Iraq that will not affect us, because it will. The people in that regime, as well as trying to take territory, are also planning to attack us here at home in the United Kingdom, so the right answer is to be long-term, hard-headed, patient and intelligent in the interventions we make. The most important intervention of all is to ensure that those Governments are fully representative of the people who live in their countries, that they close down the ungoverned space and that they remove the support for the extremists. We must do that not only in Syria, but in Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria and Mali, because these problems will come back and hit us at home if we do not.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

Q2. This week construction begins on Watford’s new university technical college, which is sponsored by the Meller Education Trust. In it, students will receive a first-class academic education, but also real preparation for real jobs in the real world. Will the Prime Minister encourage young people in Watford to explore the opportunities that this wonderful new school will offer?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that we are doing all we can to help get the Watford university technical college ready to open its doors in September so that students can start to benefit. Having visited university technical colleges in Harlow and Staffordshire, I think that they represent the filling in of one of the missing links in our education system that was left after the second world war, when ironically we helped the Germans establish good technical schools but did not put them in place here in the United Kingdom. I am very proud to be leading a Government who are putting that right.

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

Three large GP practices in the most deprived areas of North East Derbyshire are facing crisis. In England we are at least 10,000 GPs short of what we need, so it is no surprise that people cannot get an appointment. Labour is promising a maximum 48-hour wait to see a GP. What is the Prime Minister promising?

[The Prime Minister]

In order to provide more GPs, we need to provide money. This Government have increased spending on the NHS, which the Labour party told us was irresponsible. What we see in our NHS today is 7,000 more doctors, more nurses and more midwives, but 19,000 fewer bureaucrats. I think that is absolutely vital in providing the health services we need.

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

Q3. The Prime Minister knows that I am awaiting a detailed response from him about a dire pollution event in Avonmouth in my constituency, but will he welcome the happier news that just up the river we are in the midst of a volunteering week of action to renovate the historic Lamplighters pub? It was closed under Enterprise Inns in 2009 but is now reopening thanks to the determination of local residents and the new owners, Kathie and Dominic Gundry-White. Will he welcome all the jobs, community spirit and real ale that will bring?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to welcome that real ale, and I of course recommend that my hon. Friend’s constituents take advantage of the 1p cut—not just in this Budget, but in the previous Budget. I know that people in Avonmouth have suffered unacceptably from the air pollution problem, and I am very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We are seeing a growth of community pubs, and that is all to the good. It is of course welcome that we introduced the community right to bid, which has enabled a number of communities to take hold of such facilities and operate them for the use of the public.

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

Q4. In its recent report on the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, the Care Quality Commission praised the staff for being “kind, caring and respectful”, but highlighted serious capacity constraints in the A and E department. Does the Prime Minister remember that a year ago, before being stopped by judicial review, his Government proposed to close the A and E department in the neighbouring Lewisham hospital, which would have added massively to the pressures on the already overstretched Queen Elizabeth? What lessons have been learned from that serious error of judgment?

[The Prime Minister]

The most important thing with our health service is to praise good service when we see it, but to recognise that where we see poor service, it has to be turned around. We are very clear about the turnaround work that is being done in many of our hospitals and that was left for year after year under Labour. The House might be interested to know that the average wait in A and E was 77 minutes when Labour was in power; it is now 30 minutes under this Government.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Q5. Will the Prime Minister advise my constituents about what action the Government are taking to ensure that areas of regeneration, such as Colindale in my constituency, receive the necessary public service infrastructure to support the increase in population?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, things such as the new homes bonus have helped to make sure that local authorities can put infrastructure in place. We have revised and strengthened new planning guidance to ensure that infrastructure is provided to support new development. My hon. Friend will also know that, as a result of the recent award of the Thameslink franchise, there will be new rolling stock on the line and that by the end of 2018 there will be over 3,000 more seats on trains running through Hendon at peak times, which I hope is welcome to his constituents.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

Q6. What does the Prime Minister believe are the underlying causes of the £2 billion deficit forecast for English national health service trusts for next year, and what are his remedies?

[The Prime Minister]

The estimates being made today are made on the basis that we have set challenges for the NHS in terms of making efficiencies. What I can report to the House, after four years in government, is that it has met those efficiency challenges every single year under this Government, and that money has been ploughed back into better patient care in our NHS. The great question for the NHS in British politics today, I would argue, is: why is it that in Wales—under Labour control—8% cuts have been made in the NHS budget? [Interruption.] Opposition Members might be yawning; people are not yawning in Wales because they are stuck on waiting lists desperate for treatment.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Q7. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England women’s football team on their success in the World cup qualifiers? On and off the pitch, women are delivering for England, with more women in employment and more women setting up businesses than in 2010. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in our long-term economic plan, we will ensure that women can continue to score the goals for the UK economy, and that no one is left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in doing so. As a keen fan of not just the England football team but the English cricket team, I have had the great pleasure of having representatives of the England women’s football and cricket teams in Downing street recently. I made the point to them that they seem to put us through considerably less heartache, stress and worry when they are qualifying for major competitions—and indeed, in the cricket team’s case, when they are winning the Ashes.

There is some good news to celebrate. Female employment is at a record high in our country. There are nearly 700,000 more women in work than at the election. We are seeing more women entrepreneurs starting up businesses. We are making sure that it is fairer for women in terms of pensions. I believe that this Government have a good record, but there is always more to be done.

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

Exactly 20 years ago today, gunmen went into a pub in a place called Loughinisland in my constituency and killed six men. There have been widespread claims about collusion and police cover-up, and their families have never received truth and justice. Only two weeks ago, the police ensured that the police ombudsman’s investigation was stalled. Does the Prime Minister agree that all UK police services must co-operate fully with their oversight authorities, according to the letter and the spirit of the law, to ensure that families such as those I represent in Loughinisland receive truth and justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Lady that everyone should co-operate with the police ombudsman. The police ombudsman system in Northern Ireland is now a model that other countries are looking to follow. This is something I discussed recently with the Taoiseach in relation to what happens in the Republic of Ireland. We have a system that works. We have the Historical Enquiries Team, which is also working. I very much hope that the work can continue between the parties in Northern Ireland to discuss the Haass principles and ideas for flags, parades and the past, and that everyone can come together to sort these issues out.

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

Q8. In Gillingham and Rainham, youth unemployment is down, overall unemployment is down and business creation is up. Does the Prime Minister agree that this clearly shows that our long-term economic plan is working? Linked to that, will he join me in welcoming the creation of a new university technical college in Medway, which will ensure that our future generations have the right skills to succeed in life?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that it is welcome that youth unemployment, which has been too high for too long in our country, is down by 25% this year in his constituency, and that long-term youth unemployment is down 41%. He made the point about university technical colleges. I want to see one of those in every major town in our country, so that we can really give our young people the opportunity of a good technical education if that is what they choose, and I want those schools to be well funded, well resourced and partnered—as is the case in his constituency—with good organisations that can bring their expertise to bear.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

How is the Prime Minister’s campaign to stop Mr Juncker going?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a simple issue of principle. This is much more connected to the principle than to the name, and I think that the principle will be shared on every side of the House. It is that the members of the European Council, the Prime Ministers and Presidents elected under the treaties, should choose who runs the European Commission. I do not mind how many people on the European Council disagree with me; I will fight this right to the very end.

I say this to my colleagues on the European Council, many of whom have expressed interesting views about this principle and this person: if you want reform in Europe, you have got to stand up for it, and if you want a change in Europe, you have got to vote for it. That is the message that I will take, and that is the right message for our country.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Ian Swales.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Q9. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last year, a Cabinet Office Minister said:“Relocation of staff out of expensive London offices to other regions continues to be high on the agenda…to deliver the savings needed.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 964W.]Will the Prime Minister look into moving some of those jobs to Redcar and Cleveland, where we have low-cost offices, affordable housing, school places, people who are ready to work, and a great lifestyle?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the relocation of jobs, and of course we want to see that develop. I know that it was disappointing about the changes to the Insolvency Service in Stockton last year, but one of the reasons that happened was that there had been such a sharp fall in bankruptcy and company closures, which is a welcome development. As he knows, employment in the north-east is rising overall—it rose by 47,000 last year—but we need to ensure not only that we generate private sector jobs but that, where we can sensibly locate public sector jobs to different parts of the country, we continue with that programme.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

How many people from this country are fighting for ISIS, and what risks do they pose to the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

The estimate so far is that about 400 people from the UK have taken part in fighting with ISIS. However, that number is based much more on what is happening in Syria, rather than in Iraq, on which we have considerably less information. Together with the Home Secretary and others, I have chaired a series of meetings in Whitehall to ensure that our intelligence, security and policing services are focused as sharply as they can be on this problem. It is estimated to be a greater threat to the UK than the return of foreign jihadis or fighters from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. As I have said, we need to ensure that we are doing everything we can to keep our country safe.

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

Q10. While it is good news that the budget deficit has been cut by a third, there is much more to do. One way of helping our country to live within its means is to send back all the convicted criminals who are foreign nationals, because it is costing British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds each year to keep them in our prisons. All too often, attempts to send back such criminals are scuppered by human rights legislation. What plans does the Prime Minister have to put an end to that ludicrous state of affairs?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more on that front. We have removed about 20,000 foreign national offenders since the Government came to office, but the number is still too high. I have allotted individual Ministers to individual territories that have the highest numbers of foreign offenders—countries such as Nigeria, Jamaica, Vietnam and China—to ensure that we make progress on returning those prisoners. We need to use the prisoner transfer agreement within the European Union, because that could lead to the return of a large number of prisoners, not least to Poland. We have to keep up the pressure on this issue. I believe that if we get a Conservative Government after the next election, we will have substantive reform of the Human Rights Act, which is not working properly for Britain.

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

Q11. Last month, the national health service missed its cancer treatment target for the very first time. What does the Prime Minister have to say to the patients and their families who have had to put their lives on hold while they wait for vital treatment to start?

[The Prime Minister]

There is not a family in this country who are not affected by cancer and the difficulties in ensuring that they get the treatment that they need as fast as they can. We have a series of targets for cancer treatment and we are meeting almost all of them. We have seen an increase of about 15% in the number of people who are being treated for cancer. Of course, we have introduced something that never existed under the previous Government—the cancer drugs fund. The hon. Lady probably knows people in her constituency, just as I know people in mine, who are getting medicines that they need, which they never got before.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Q12. The Prime Minister will know that the economic recovery in Essex has been led by the private sector, with Essex firms creating thousands of new jobs and exporting across the globe. Will he commend Essex businesses and support their efforts to export more by looking favourably on our plans to upgrade the infrastructure on the road and rail networks across Essex?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said before, where Essex leads, the rest of the country follows. Private sector employment, entrepreneurialism and the employment of more people are exactly what the economy needs in the economic recovery, and that is what our economic plan is delivering. Last week, we saw a record increase in employment. This week, we have seen inflation fall to a five-year low. I had very successful meetings yesterday with the Chinese Premier, in which we signed £14 billion-worth of important deals that will bring jobs, growth and investment to this country. We have to keep working on every aspect of our plan, including increasing our exports to the fastest growing countries in the world.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

The former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, has made a strong case for looking at our constitutional arrangements, whatever the outcome in Scotland in September. Does the Prime Minister accept that devolution in England, outside London, is very much unfinished business? If our great cities such as Birmingham want to remain the economic engines, they require radically reformed funding structures and our regions require strategic directly elected mayors.

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows, I am a fan of directly elected mayors. However, the people of Birmingham had their chance to make that decision and they voted not to have a mayor. I hope that people will see successful mayors in London, Liverpool, Bristol and other parts of the country, and see that there are benefits from that approach. I agree with her that, even if we do not move to a mayoral system, there is more that we can do through city deals, local enterprise partnerships and devolving some of the funding in Whitehall further down towards cities and regions. All that would be to the good. It is worth while and welcome that in its policy review, her party has decided not to tear up local enterprise partnerships, but to extend them. It is good that there is cross-party agreement on how to drive devolution out to our great cities around the country.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Q13. On behalf of my Burntwood constituents, may I thank the Prime Minister for his swift and effective action in giving what is, in effect, a posthumous honour to my constituent Stephen Sutton? With the economic plan now working well, how can we build on that and on the legacy that Stephen Sutton set for charitable giving?

[The Prime Minister]

Stephen was an absolutely inspiring individual, and his zest for life, even as he was suffering from a very difficult and progressive cancer, was completely extraordinary and very inspiring. He raised a huge amount of money for teenage cancer services, and he raised it from right around the world as well as the UK. I think it is right that our honours system properly rewards people who give to charity, and who give of their time, from the very bottom to the very top. There is probably more we can do to make sure that our honours system really reflects what the British public want, which is to see giving, generosity and compassion rewarded.

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

The Prime Minister may recollect that a few months ago at Prime Minister’s questions I asked him to meet the victims of the drug Primodos. More than 50 of them are coming to Parliament today, and I ask the Prime Minister if he would see them; look at the documents that we have produced, which show that the then medical community knew that the drug was causing deformities in babies and nothing was done about it; and consider a public inquiry.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think I will be able, I am afraid, today to see her constituents and the people she is bringing to the House of Commons. I am very happy to have another conversation with her about what can be done and to understand what more can be communicated to those people, so perhaps we can fix that up.

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

Q14. In welcoming the Chinese Premier Mr Li to this country, and in recognising that China is one of the greatest export markets for Britain, may I ask the Prime Minister to use his good offices to unblock the barrier to the export of pigs’ feet for human consumption, which will bring in thousands of pounds and ensure the long-term economic growth of north Yorkshire?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly take up my hon. Friend on that issue. I recall that on a previous visit to China we unlocked the export of pig semen to China, so we made progress. I seem to remember that the press release referred to “the pig society”—sorry about that one. I will look very carefully at the question of pigs’ feet, and if exports can be allowed and jobs can be created by that, I will be happy to help.

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

Q15. Notwithstanding serious problems elsewhere, does the Prime Minister share my concern about the crisis in South Sudan, where 4 million people are facing famine? What steps are being taken to implement the peace process?

[The Prime Minister]

I discussed the issue yesterday with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, very bravely, had been with local church leaders to the town of Bor, which has been the site of some of the most serious fighting. It is a very different part of the world from the one we discussed earlier, but some of the same rules apply. We need a Government who govern on behalf of all the people in that country, Dinka and Nuer, and who do not try to divide the country along ethnic lines. We will do what we can. When we talk about intervention in this country, it is intervention through diplomacy, through aid, through assistance and through advice, and we will continue to do that good work.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the conference this weekend in Athens of the national chairmen of the European Select Committees, which was attended by delegates from all parties as well as by chairmen of the European parliamentary committees, the British delegation defeated an attempt to treat the word “euroscepticism” as equivalent to xenophobia and racism; and, furthermore, that on the question of the procedure relating to the proposed appointment or election of Mr Juncker, the conference agreed with the British delegation that that was an unprecedented, unacceptable and unsuccessful procedure?

[The Prime Minister]

There are no surprises that my hon. Friend was successful in this very important negotiation on behalf of Britain. There is support right around Europe for the concept of the Council of Ministers making these choices, but, as I say, it requires the elected Prime Ministers and Presidents to vote in the way that they believe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We have been slightly delayed, but there are accommodations that I want to make today.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

On the Prime Minister’s watch, five GP surgeries in my borough, and 98 nationally, face closure. Is that what he meant when he promised to protect the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

What I meant when I said we would protect the NHS is just that. We are spending £12.7 billion more on the NHS; Labour said that that was irresponsible. We have 7,000 more doctors in our NHS, 3,000 more nurses in our NHS, and over 1,000 more midwives in our NHS, but there is something we have less of in our NHS—we have 19,000 fewer bureaucrats, and that money has been piled into patient care, including improving primary care right around the country.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

The people of Newark have enjoyed becoming better acquainted with the Prime Minister this past month.

I regret to inform the Prime Minister that last week the town of Southwell in my constituency was again flooded. Will he reaffirm his commitment to supporting my proposal that the parts of Nottinghamshire that were severely affected by the floods of 2013 receive similar grants to the parts elsewhere in the country flooded at the beginning of this year?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, may I welcome my hon. Friend to his place in the House of Commons after what was a long and arduous but well fought and very positive by-election campaign?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that there are parts of the country, in Nottinghamshire but also elsewhere, that flooded during the course of 2013 and were not eligible for some of the payments made subsequent to the flooding at the turn of the last year, with support for householders and farmers and other sorts of proposals. We are looking very hard at whether we can put back to the beginning of the 2013 financial year the eligibility criteria for that flood work. I will look at this issue very carefully and talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to see whether we can resolve it for my hon. Friend.

Points of Order

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

12:37

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given notice to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford). Yesterday the hon. Gentleman made a point of order about a meeting that took place in my constituency that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government attended. He did not have the courtesy to inform me in advance of his intention. He complained that the meeting held at Rushden Lakes in my constituency had pre-empted the Department’s proper announcement re the planning application. He implied that Wellingborough councillor Tom Pursglove—the excellent Conservative parliamentary candidate for Corby—and I knew in advance of the planning decision and planned the event days in advance. The truth of the matter is that neither I nor Tom Pursglove knew in advance of the official announcement. It is also untrue that the Secretary of State’s visit was a ministerial visit; it was in fact a Conservative party event that he attended without any officials. It is also simply untrue that this event had been planned in advance. Could you advise me, Sir, as to whether there is any requirement for hon. Members to notify other hon. Members about party events that are happening wholly within their constituencies?

[Mr Speaker]

Let me begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which, with characteristic courtesy, he gave me notice. Yesterday’s point of order and my response did not address the issue of notification of visits to other Members’ constituencies. The conventions on that matter are clear. Any Member intending to visit another Member’s constituency on official business should give notice of their plans to the constituency Member. What I would like to say at this stage to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, is that I think that the House has probably heard enough about this matter. I say that in no pejorative spirit but in a factual sense, especially as there is an Adjournment debate on it this evening. Of that fact, of course, the hon. Gentleman is himself keenly aware, for the debate is his. We will leave it there for the time being.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to seek your advice. The House is obviously privileged to be the subject of a documentary, which is being filmed at present, but I am sure no one would wish to breach the integrity of a ballot that is currently taking place for the position of Chair of the Health Committee. May I seek your advice to ensure that the integrity of what should be a secret ballot will not be compromised?

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Is the hon. Lady’s point of order on the same subject or a different one?

[Heather Wheeler]

It is on the same subject, sir.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not necessary, because the point has been made eloquently clear.

[Heather Wheeler]

It is on a separate piece of business.

[Mr Speaker]

We will come to the separate point of order in a moment. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy.

I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) for her point of order and for giving my office advance notice of it. I can reassure her and the House that there can be no question of the integrity of the ballot being compromised in any way. The fact of the documentary is well known. Those undertaking it have been told explicitly that they must not interfere with the running of the ballot or in any way put at risk the secrecy of the ballots being cast. [Interruption.] Order. I can also assure the hon. Lady that the film crew will not—I repeat, will not—be allowed to see any more of the actual process of counting than can be seen by Members. I can also tell the House that I plan to announce the result shortly after 4 o’clock, after the conclusion of any Division on the first Opposition day motion.

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

On a similar point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No, I have dealt with the matter. On a separate matter, I call Heather Wheeler.

[Heather Wheeler]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On a separate matter, I wonder whether you could help us. There is a feeling among Members that the TV cameras are going perhaps too far, too fast. There is a rumour going around that they will be coming into the voting Lobbies while we are actually voting. I would suggest that you might be able to put our minds at rest and tell us that that is not going to happen.

[Mr Gray]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, go on: I will give the hon. Gentleman his opportunity.

[Mr Gray]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Some of us are strongly supportive of Michael Cockerell and his film crew going around the House. The public out there get the wrong impression from seeing things such as Prime Minister’s Question Time, and people such as me strongly support the fact that Michael Cockerell is getting into the voting Lobbies and elsewhere and that he will demonstrate to the world that we do a good job here. Let us see them in the voting Lobbies and elsewhere.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to hon. Members for the points of order they have raised. What I would like to say to the House is this: the fact of the documentary being granted permission is well known. That decision was made some time ago on the basis of deliberations by the Administration Committee. That is a well-established fact and I make no secret of the fact that I support wholeheartedly that decision. I think that Members would accept that it would be invidious for the Chair, on anything of a regular basis, to be expected to comment on particular requests. Suffice it to say that I am in regular touch, of course, with representatives of both sides of the House at the highest level, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton would expect, and, of course, with the Chair of the Administration Committee. Each request should, I think, be treated on its merits.

I have heard of one request that is apparently to be winging its way towards me, to which neither the hon. Lady nor any other Member has referred today, which I would regard as wholly intrusive, unfair to Members and unacceptable. If such a request to interfere with the private space of Members when they are relaxing, enjoying themselves and consuming food or drink in the Tea Room is made, those making the request will be disappointed. [Hon. Members: “What is wrong with it?”] What is wrong with it? I do not think that an hon. Member consuming a cup of tea and beans on toast should be subjected to a film crew.

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

Three cheers for the Speaker!

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Before I take a point of order from the hon. Gentleman, to whom I always listen with the greatest respect, I should record for posterity that the Secretary of State for Education, either deliberately and sincerely, or ironically and teasingly—I leave hon. Members to judge—said “Three cheers for the Speaker”. He is on the record.

[Michael Gove]

Sincerely, Mr Speaker, sincerely.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman says it was sincerely. It is on the record and I shall treasure it.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) always seeks to behave in an orderly manner and with respect to precedent and the rulings of the Chair, so I therefore assume that he is not raising a point of order on the same matter.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I do venture, Mr Speaker, to raise a point of order on the same matter, because I was unclear as to your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler). Whether the remarks of the Secretary of State for Education will now be part of the national curriculum may be another matter, but I think it is pertinent to this House whether cameras will be allowed into the Division Lobby. Often, extremely private conversations take place in the Division Lobby—[Hon. Members: “Plotting!”] Indeed, plotting takes place in both Lobbies. I think that an important constitutional issue is at stake. In the Lobby, right hon. and hon. Members confer, often on sensitive matters, and in my humble opinion it would be quite improper for those conversations to be recorded.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will reflect carefully on it. I simply invite him—he is a keen reader at all times—to study Hansard tomorrow. If thereafter he wishes to come back to me or to the House, I think he will require no encouragement. We will leave it there for today.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am always most courteous to the hon. Gentleman as, to be fair, is he to me and to the House, but I think I have indulged him sufficiently for today.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some of the exchanges we have just heard remind me of the controversy over whether the House should be televised. I voted in favour of that, and I am glad we did that. Some of the reservations expressed today were not really justified.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and I think I will leave it there. In passing, however, I note and congratulate him on what is now 39 years’ service in the House. I think I am right about that—four years from ’66 to ’70, and 35 years since ’79—so unless my arithmetic is flawed, he has only one more year to get to 40.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

What is his home phone number?

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know his home phone number. We will leave it there.

Opposition Day

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[1st Allotted Day]

Passport Applications

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

12:48

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

I beg to move,

That this House expresses concern at the experience of constituents applying for passports at HM Passport Office, including lengthy delays and consequential cancellations of holidays and business visits; notes the Government’s response to the Urgent Question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford of 12 June 2014, setting out emergency measures to deal with the passport backlog after an increase in demand; further notes that HM Passport Office is taking over responsibility for issuing an estimated 350,000 passports to citizens overseas from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this year; believes that the Government failed to properly plan to meet the level of demand this year; calls on the Government to expand its emergency measures by compensating passport applicants who had to pay for urgent upgrades in recent weeks because of internal delays with HM Passport Office; and further calls for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to publish monthly figures for passport applications from within the UK and abroad compared to previous years to monitor performance at HM Passport Office.

The Opposition have called this debate because we are still not getting answers about what is happening to get people the passports and travel documents they need. In answer to a question earlier, the Prime Minister suggested that the Home Secretary might have more to announce today. I hope that that is the case, because the action taken so far is clearly not enough. It is disappointing that we get answers and action only when the Home Secretary is called to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to make further progress.

Since we last heard from the Home Secretary, MPs have had yet more constituents get in touch to raise their concerns and problems.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary join me in wishing well my constituent, Jordan Frapwell, at the European triathlon championships in Austria, and extend her thanks to the Passport Office for making sure that he could get there in time to compete?

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituent all the best, and I am glad that he got his passport in time. I also hope that he did not face undue stress over any delays. Other hon. Members have constituents who have been attending international sporting competitions and have had to drive halfway across the country to Durham the night before they were due to fly out to make sure that they had their passport on time.

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

About 23 minutes ago, yet another constituent contacted me with the problem of a delayed passport—that makes almost 30 cases I have had since this episode started. That constituent may benefit from the free upgrading service announced by the Secretary of State last week, but I had an e-mail this morning from another constituent who has spent a total of £176.50 on upgrading passport applications for herself and her children because their passports were delayed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such people should get a refund?

[Yvette Cooper]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and that is one of the purposes of the motion today. We hope that the Government will give way on this and do more to help those who through no fault of their own have had to pay out in order to meet deadlines.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the case of my 94-year-old constituent. She was going on a cruise—her first holiday for 20 years—and we managed to get her passport, thankfully, the day before she was due to travel, but she had to pay an extra £55. Her daughter told the Daily Mail:

“They’re holding people to ransom. It’s disgusting”.

The family had to pay the money, because otherwise their relative would not have been able to go on holiday, but why should she have had to pay when she applied in good time for her passport?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. So many people have worked hard to save up for holidays, for months and sometimes years, and they do not want those precious holidays that they have been looking forward to put at risk. That is why they have been forking out, but it simply is not fair on people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent.

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

Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that at yesterday’s meeting of the Home Affairs Committee the PCS refused to rule out strike action? Does she agree with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that it would do nothing to enhance the reputation of the PCS if it strikes while hard-working taxpayers are waiting for passports for their holidays or to go on business?

[Yvette Cooper]

Of course we do not want to see strike action—nobody does—but we do want to see action by the Home Secretary to make sure that people get their passports on time and have not had to fork out in the process.

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

I was very interested to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who is no longer in his place. I have received an e-mail from a constituent whose son applied for a passport in March to go to Austria at the end of this month as part of achieving his explorer badge with the Scouts. Does my right hon. Friend hope that my constituent is able to get his passport like the hon. Gentleman’s constituent did?

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly do. March is three months ago, and people should get their passports within three weeks, according to the Government’s targets. That simply is not happening.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I have also had constituents contact me with concerns, and in most cases those have been sorted out, but in addition I am being contacted by constituents before the target time has been exceeded. Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that perhaps people are unnecessarily getting the message that they should be anxious about their passport applications?

[Yvette Cooper]

The unfortunate thing is that the message on the Government’s websites and helplines still says that passports will be processed within three weeks. Families are making decisions on that basis: they think it will be done within three weeks and then it is not. It can be delayed by many weeks, and that is a huge problem, because they have made plans and invested in booking holidays.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that staff in places such as Liverpool passport office are doing their best with the backlog, and that this is a systemic failure on the part of the Government and not the fault of people who have been put in an intolerable position by staff cuts?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We understand that staff are working long hours, including weekends, but people are still not getting their passports in time.

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

Does my right hon. Friend think that my constituent should be refunded? She was standing in the queue at Newport passport office being asked to part with £55 for the privilege of getting her delayed passport at the very moment that the Home Secretary was on her feet last week saying that charges would be waived from the following Monday. Should she not have that £55 refunded, as well as a letter of apology, perhaps?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. It is unfair on British citizens across the country who have been asked to pay more money in order that they can go on holiday simply because of the Home Office’s incompetence. Carla McGillivary and Dean Anderson applied for a passport for Dean more than six weeks ago. He cannot get an urgent upgrade because his is a first-time adult application. They paid for their holiday to Portugal out of Carla’s redundancy pay. Her new job is a zero-hours contract, so she does not know when she will be able to book a holiday again. They have been looking forward to this holiday, even arranging for their son to go swimming with dolphins. They fear now that they will have to cancel their holiday or risk losing all the money—they are supposed to pay the remainder of the deposit today. They have not got Dean’s passport and they do not know when it will arrive. Carla said:

“This is our first family holiday. I have no idea when we will be able to go on holiday again. I just don’t know what to do.”

One family had to leave their young son behind with his grandparents, because his passport did not come in time. One man missed his brother’s wedding in Greece because his passport did not come in time, despite his applying weeks in advance. People have saved up, worked hard and looked forward to a precious holiday for months. People have weddings, funerals, family events abroad, business trips, conferences, meetings and deals to make. Some people who are living abroad are keen to come home or just want to make sure that their visas are still valid.

Today we need to know whether the Home Secretary yet has control of the problem, whether she knows when things will be back to normal and whether she understands what went wrong in the first place. We also want to debate the new policies that she has announced. Are they working and are they enough to solve the problem? So far we have had little reassurance that the Home Secretary has been on top of the problem. Just last week she and the Minister for Security and Immigration were saying that there was no backlog. Now we know that it is hundreds of thousands. Last week the Home Secretary said how pleased she was that the Passport Office was meeting the service standards and that 99% of passports were being sent out within four weeks. Yesterday we learnt from the Passport Office chief executive that tens of thousands of passports every week are missing those service standards.

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

I did some quick calculations on the cases in my office at the moment, and the average wait is eight weeks.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that people are facing long waits. The Home Office simply does not seem to know what is going on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Immigration Minister, has asked countless questions to try to get to the facts of what is happening. A typical answer from the Minister reads, “The Home Office has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.” The Home Office cannot even answer questions, never mind get people’s passports to them on time.

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

The Home Office does not seem to understand the financial realities for people affected by this situation. One of my constituents is stuck out in Saudi Arabia. His work has ended but he cannot return to the UK. He is broke, but the Home Office does not seem to be doing anything urgently about the problem.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why the Home Office should compensate those who have had to pay the extra upgrade fees to get their passports on time.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

We share a concern to make sure that people get their passports as quickly as possible, as I hope everyone would agree. Can the right hon. Lady point me to any line in her motion that would help someone who is currently waiting for their passport? What has she proposed that would help someone, as opposed to putting blame about?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will set out today what we think the Government should be doing. First, they should help the families who have had to pay extra, but the Home Secretary will have to do more to make sure that people get their passports on time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way one more time and then make a bit more progress.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On the subject of what the Government could and should do, I asked the Home Secretary last week about the wording on the Government’s website on the three-week time. We have already heard the estimates my hon. Friends have made of the cases they have seen. The wording gives every indication that it should take three weeks—no more, no less. Is it not that that is causing the problem? What does my right hon. Friend think the Government should do right now to help people?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. People rely on the advice they are given on the website and via the helpline. When they go to the post office to do the check and send they are given information, but they have had no response or further information from the Home Office to tell them that something is going wrong. They make plans accordingly, and as a result they suddenly find themselves in the lurch.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will make a little more progress and then come back to my hon. Friends.

We do not even know whether the Home Secretary has got to the bottom of why she is in this mess in the first place. Why was the increase in passport applications such a surprise to the Government? Ministers tell us that demand is up by 300,000 compared to last year, and the Passport Office chief executive said it may be 500,000 higher over the course of the year. Why were they so surprised by that? Last year already saw a big increase, with applications going up by 400,000 compared to the year before. Was it really beyond the wit of the Home Office to ensure that it had plans in place in case the number went up again, especially when Ministers’ own decisions were pushing up demand?

The Home Secretary agreed to close the international offices and bring passport applications for overseas residents back home this year. She did not make sure there was enough capacity to cope. According to the Passport Office chief executive, that decision alone has led to an increase of 400,000 more applications to the Passport Office this year. Those cases have seen some of the longest delays of all. It used to take 15 days to sort those passports out—that is what it says in the Foreign Office annual report—but now some of those families are being told it could take nine or 10 weeks. That is affecting everyone else’s applications, too. This is what one mother from Liverpool was told when she tried to chase her son’s passport application. She said:

“I called the Liverpool office again. A lady said they were much busier than normal as they are now processing passports for all over the world not just for the UK and passports are taking 6 to 8 weeks to process.”

[Nicola Blackwood]

The right hon. Lady is very generous, but I fear she has misunderstood the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee heard from the chief executive of the Passport Office. He was very clear that the increase in demand was not solely from processing foreign applications but from a whole range of sources, and that it was conducting a review to find out exactly what they were. Foreign applications were not the reason why it was experiencing an increase in demand.

[Yvette Cooper]

Does not the hon. Lady have some concern that neither the Home Secretary nor the chief executive of the Passport Office have been able to break down the increase in demand? They simply have not told us how much is due to the increase in foreign residents’ applications, which we know is taking place as a result of their policy decisions, and how much is increased demand from British residents. She simply has not given us those facts.

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

Whatever Mr Pugh said yesterday, let me read what he put in his annual report only a year ago. He said, on the transfer of work in 2014, that

“IPS will be providing passport services for approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually.”

That is the increase in demand that he predicted.

[Yvette Cooper]

Exactly. We know there has been a substantial increase as a result of foreign residents applying for their British passports to be renewed, or applying for new passports for their children. Those who are living abroad are often the most complex cases, yet it is clear that the Home Secretary has not put in place the capacity to cope.

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

My right hon. Friend might be aware that yesterday the Home Affairs Committee spoke to the gentleman representing the union. He said that the unions and the people working in the Passport Office had told the management there were a lot of applications and that the cuts in numbers were not helping. This matter was raised with the management on many occasions.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. I know she raised that point in the Committee’s evidence session yesterday. People have made it very clear, including the very nice lady who spoke to a constituent at the Liverpool office, that it is having an impact, because they are having to process so many more foreign applications. That was a decision taken by the Government, by Ministers, and yet they failed to put the additional capacity they needed in place.

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

Does the right hon. Lady not agree that the UK has a very cumbersome process for passport applications? A constituent of mine in Hong Kong applied months ago for a passport for her new baby son, but after months of delay with not much happening she has now decided to apply for a Canadian passport for her son, as the father is Canadian. She is choosing Canadian citizenship for their child over being a British subject because the passport will be given solely on the basis of the father’s birth certificate, as opposed to sending passports away to a passport office in another country. The passport application process is done far more easily in Canada in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost. Is there not something the UK can learn from places like Canada?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it used to be done in a fraction of the time. The British Passport Office used to be able to process passports much more rapidly. The international centres used to be able to process passports within 15 days, but they are not doing so now because of decisions Ministers have taken.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will make a little progress and then give way. Actually, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), because she has been waiting for a long time.

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

The majority of the delays I have seen have been for parents with very small children and babies. They have been very distressed. The problem is not just the delay in itself. As she said, my constituent, Mr Martin Griffin, had to drive up to Durham, after paying extra money, the night before the holiday. He talked about days and weeks of distress and very poor contradictory advice, with different things being told to them every day. While his wife was trying to care for their little baby son, they were very anxious about their holiday. Day in, day out they were told different things. There is no excuse for the delay, but there is no excuse for all that confusion either.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. It is clear that a lot of the cases being raised are where there are long delays for families applying for their child’s first passport. Those applications should be relatively straightforward, but families are facing very long delays and that is jeopardising family holidays.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is not the fundamental issue a complete lack of confidence in what the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister are saying? Two constituents contacted me on Twitter yesterday to say that promised emergency travel documents were still out of reach and that the embassy in Qatar was clueless on how to issue them. They have newborns still stuck here. What seems to be consistent is that they are hearing one message from the Home Secretary, but when they try to deal with the system, it does not follow through.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is a very important point and I will come on to some of the problems with the emergency measures the Home Secretary has introduced, because it is clear that they are not yet working.

The problem is that the Home Office simply did not listen to the warnings. Why did the Home Secretary not act in January when the Passport Office says it first realised there was a problem? Why did she not act in February when applications kept going up? My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, the shadow Immigration Minister, wrote to the Immigration Minister in March, three months ago, to warn him about the problem. Why did she not act then? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary sits on the Front Bench and says that she did act. How come so many people are still waiting so long for their passports, when they have paid so much extra to get them on time? Why did the Home Secretary not do enough in April, when more and more MPs’ complaints started coming in? Why did she not act in May, when diplomats warned her the system was not working? Why, even in June, did she spend days denying there was a backlog, denying there was a problem and boasting about meeting all the targets?

The Prime Minister claimed last week that the Home Office has been on it since January. On what? It certainly was not on it even last week. The Home Secretary did not have her eye on the ball. She was too busy dealing with the Education Secretary’s hissy fits and too busy blaming everyone else. She said last week it was the seasonal upsurge. How British—it really must be the weather to blame! She then said that the problem was an unprecedented increase in demand—the Home Secretary blames the passport crisis on people wanting passports. The Prime Minister blamed identity cards. Conservative Back Benchers even claimed it was a crisis manufactured by the Opposition. With this Home Secretary, it is always someone else’s fault. She blames the weather, the holidaymakers, the economy, the Labour party, the civil service and even the Education Secretary—we will join her in that, but round in circles they go. We have known for some time that the Government are not going anywhere, but now no one else is going anywhere.

When will the crisis be over? Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary said that 98% of targets were being met. This week, the Passport Office chief executive said that 90% were being met. It is getting worse, not better. How many months will it take to have the system back on track? What difference will the new measures make now? The Home Secretary has said that there will be 250 extra staff. It is clear from the Passport Office chief executive that many of them are still being trained. In addition, they are coming from other parts of the Home Office, including borders. Just as this is a busy time for the Passport Office, it is an increasingly busy time at our borders. We know that customs checks are not being done, so what else is being put at risk? Is the Home Secretary confident that she now has enough staff in place to clear the backlog? If she has enough, surely she can give us a timetable on when applications and processing will be back to normal, and when families can be reassured that they will not face delays.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that many of the staff in Liverpool are constituents of mine. They are extremely concerned at the lack of urgency that she has very well described. Does she agree that the Passport Office refusal to meet the trade union after repeated requests demonstrates what a fiasco this is, and how badly the problem has been approached? The union is attempting to help resolve the issue. Surely that offer of help should have been taken at the earliest opportunity.

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope the management and work force can work together. It is helpful that the union has shown support to sort the problem out and get things done in time.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Home Affairs Committee was very surprised when we heard that the amount of work in progress was 493,000, because we have not yet reached the peak of the application period. However, we were even more surprised when no timetable was given. The chief executive said it would be done in a reasonable time. When we asked him what a reasonable time was, he said, “How long is a piece of string?” We need a timetable to get work in progress quickly.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Affairs Committee work in taking evidence has been important, because my right hon. Friend is exactly right that we need a time scale. We need to know how long this piece of string is. Is it a short piece of string or a long one? Are we talking about a few weeks or a few months, or about this time next year? People who have holidays in September or business trips in October need to know how far in advance they should plan and whether they should be worried. Ministers are not giving us answers on how long it will take.

The Home Secretary has said that there will be 650 extra staff on the telephone helpline, which means more extra staff for the helpline than for clearing passports. How much does she think that will help? Currently, most people’s experience of the helpline is that people take messages and promise that someone else will call back. The person who is supposed to call back does not do so, and the people on the helpline do not know the answers.

That system is doing people’s heads in. We heard from Ria Runsewe and her family in Bromley. On 5 May, they applied for a passport for their 10-week-old son, and then heard nothing. She said:

“I called the helpline to check its progress…I was told someone would call me back within 48 hours, but I missed the call while I was changing my son’s nappy. Ten minutes later, I called back—only to be told that I had gone to the bottom of the queue and would have to wait another 48 hours.”

She eventually got through to someone and asked to upgrade to the premium service, and spent two more weeks chasing before someone else called her back to take payment and promise that the passport would be there the following day.

Another family gave us this account of their conversation on the helpline. Passport Office: “We can’t guarantee when your passport will be sent or when you will receive it.” Me: “What can I do?” Him: “You can’t do anything?” Me: “Can’t I pay to upgrade?” Him: “We can’t talk about that. You have to ring another number.” Me: “But that is your number.” Him: “We can’t talk about it until you mention it.” Me: “Okay. I’m mentioning it, and, in fact, I can categorically say I want it.” Him: “We can’t guarantee that they will do anything and they may not respond to you, but you can apply again for an urgent upgrade after that, and you may be lucky that time.” That is not even Kafkaesque; it is Monty Python. We do not need a system that simply has more staff to take messages. We need staff in place to clear passports and ensure that constituents throughout the country are told what is going on.

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

I have just had an e-mail from Michelle Morris, a member of my staff who has been waiting for three days to hear back from the helpline about her case. She has had a phone call in which she was told that the case is too complicated. She was due to leave today from Gatwick with her son. The travel agents have rescheduled the flight for Friday. The question is whether the helpline will ring back to tell us that the passport will be sorted out by then.

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope my hon. Friend’s member of staff gets answers. In too many cases, people simply do not get a reply or a response.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

We have been listening to the debate for about half an hour and, so far, unless I am mistaken, I have heard not one solution from the right hon. Lady. Can she tell us what the Labour Government learned from the 1999 debacle? Can she provide advice on how to put the current situation right?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Conservatives have been in government for four years. They cannot simply blame history to explain why things have gone wrong this time.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that there is a Welsh language helpline. However, Sian Burton, my constituent, applying for a passport for her son, called the Welsh language helpline repeatedly over several days and never managed to get through to an adviser. She was eventually put through to an English-speaking adviser. She speaks English and so eventually collected the passport from Liverpool. She told me that staff in the Liverpool office were friendly and helpful, but clearly under very great stress. She is going on holiday this afternoon—she is flying now.

[Yvette Cooper]

I wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituent a good holiday after the stress she has endured.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

We are talking about people who are unable to go on their holidays, but my constituents are stuck in India with their newborn babies, unable to get home. They get no response from the helplines. In fact, their passports would have been issued by the Hong Kong office had it been open. They are desperate, running out of money and stuck in a hot hotel room in India.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on some of the difficult cases and long delays faced by British citizens overseas, not least as a result of the decisions that the Home Secretary has taken. I, too, have constituents who are abroad who are waiting for passports to be returned because they depend on having up-to-date papers to meet their visa conditions. They are worried that they will be penalised in the country where they are resident because their papers will not be valid unless they get their passports back in time.

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

My case is like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). My constituent lives in Stockport, but his wife and their son are stuck in Mumbai. The baby was born on 18 January. They still do not have a passport or a resolution. The hotline advice was for them to travel from Mumbai to Delhi. Of course, they cannot do so because they do not have a travel document for the baby. What kind of advice is that?

[Yvette Cooper]

These are the kinds of difficulties faced by British citizens across the world, many of them working hard in jobs abroad, including families who want to return home, but are unable to get the papers they need to return with their young children.

The Home Secretary outlined some measures to deal with British residents overseas. They are belated, but she has announced some measures to respond and we welcome that. However, there are still questions about those measures. She has said, for example, that British citizens overseas can now simply extend their existing passports and that children abroad can get emergency travel documents. However, people who have applied and are already in the system have been told that if they want to do that, they will have to withdraw their existing application, that that might take two weeks and that they will have to wait for their existing papers to be returned before they can apply for the emergency provisions and emergency travel papers instead.

[Robert Flello]

My right hon. Friend is being extremely generous in taking interventions. I have a constituent in Abu Dhabi waiting for children’s visas who is being charged on a daily basis until the problem is sorted out. Therefore, in addition to waiting, my constituent is also being penalised financially.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that goes to the heart of the problems faced by a lot of families, who are experiencing stress and delay, but also having to pay for it.

The Home Secretary has said that British residents will be able to get a free fast-track upgrade if they are due to travel. Again, that is welcome, but even that is causing problems. One family who drove to Durham told us:

“My husband queried the fee and they said it’s not true about the fee waiver and it was just a rumour.”

Another was told that if they wanted to fast-track, they would have to cancel their existing application and that that would take 14 days. People who submitted their application online are being told that they cannot get a free upgrade. Even for a fast track, people have to make an appointment. One family were told that the only appointment in the next three weeks was in Durham.

According to the helpline today, the soonest that anyone can get an appointment anywhere in the country is Friday in Durham or Sunday in London, and even then it could take them an extra week to get their passport. Anyone who wants the premium service—to get their passport the next day, because they are about to travel urgently—will still have to pay. According to the Home Secretary, only the fast-track upgrade is free, not the premium service, despite the fact that some people applied for their passports many weeks ago and are now right up against the line.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Did she notice a Monty Python-esque moment in the Home Affairs Committee yesterday? It was very similar to the salesman’s explanation that the parrot was not dead, but was very deeply asleep. When the chief executive was asked about the logjam, he said there was no logjam. When he was shown published photographs of rooms of chairs and tables filled with passport applications, he said, “That’s not a logjam; that’s work in progress.” It was pure Monty Python.

[Yvette Cooper]

We have heard that point made by Ministers, the Home Office press office and officials—“Backlog? No backlog.” Yet that is not the experience of families across the country.

What about those who have paid already, one of the key issues in our motion? Martin Cook from Ipswich, who applied many weeks ago, before the three-week deadline, has now had to pay £65 to upgrade, so that he and his wife can go on a romantic break to Prague. Audrey Strong’s 94-year-old mother—whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)mentioned—has paid the extra to upgrade so that she can go on her cruise. She feels like she is being held to ransom. After weeks of delay, Anne Dannerolle from Hull paid for the upgrade to next-day delivery. Her passport still did not come and she had to drive a 200-mile round trip just hours before her flight. Roy Pattison, a security guard from Worcester, applied seven weeks ago, before his holiday to Turkey. Finally, on Friday he paid to upgrade to the fast-track service, but his passport still did not arrive on time.

The Passport Office has made money out of those families. Too early to get the Home Secretary’s fast-track offer, but too late to wait any longer before they travel, they have been forced to pay out. I therefore urge the Home Secretary to agree today that those families who have already had to pay out because of her delays should also be refunded the cost of their fast-track service.

We still do not know when things will be back to normal. Families still do not know how long they can expect to wait. We still do not know whether the Home Office has a grip, but families want answers now. We want to know when things will be back to normal. The Home Secretary should look again at the system for processing overseas passports, because it is not working. She should look again at the staffing, to ensure that she has enough staff in place to get the backlog down fast. She should look again at other measures to get through the summer, such as more support for check and send to reduce errors at this difficult time. She should look again at the fast-track and premium services, because they do not seem to be working well enough. She should also look again at compensating people who have paid extra fees through no fault of their own.

Would it be too much to ask for a little bit of humility from the Home Secretary when she stands up today, given the holidays she has put at risk? Yesterday the chief executive of the Passport Office gave an apology; last week the Prime Minister gave an apology; so can we have an apology from the Home Secretary, as the Minister in charge of it all? Why doesn’t she begin her speech with that apology to those families now?

13:25

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

As I told the House last week, Her Majesty’s Passport Office is dealing with the highest demand for passports in 12 years, while the surge in demand usually experienced during the summer months started much earlier in the year. As a result, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed. I would like to say to anybody who is unable to travel because of a delay in processing their passport application that I am sorry and the Government are sorry for the inconvenience they have suffered, and we are doing all we can to put things right.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for apologising and for allowing me to intervene, but will she address the pertinent point, which has been raised, that the Passport Office told the Home Secretary in its annual report that there would be a rise of 350,000 passport applications for her Department to process. Why did she not address that? She was given notice.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady asked to intervene on my speech at a very early stage. If she just has a little patience, I will address that question.

Before I turn to the detail of the problems faced by HMPO and what we are doing to address them, I would like to make it clear that, despite the unprecedented level of demand, the overwhelming majority of people making straightforward applications are still receiving their passports within three weeks as usual.

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

This morning two of my constituents reported to my office that they had been told by travel agents that they would not make arrangements for travel until they produced a passport. Has the Secretary of State or anyone in her Department been in touch with the Association of British Travel Agents?

[Mrs May]

We have been talking to the travel industry and the Post Office, which receives applications for passports through the check-and-send process. We are dealing both with those dealing with people who are travelling and with those dealing with passport applications to ensure that the messages people are getting are the correct ones.

To return to the figures I was talking about, over the first five months of this year, HMPO has processed more than 97% of straightforward passport renewals and child applications within the three-week target turnaround time. In the first two weeks of June—up to 15 June—89% of straightforward renewals and child applications were still being processed within the three-week turnaround time, so the majority of people have been receiving their passports within three weeks. Over the first five months of this year, more than 99% of straightforward applications have been processed within four weeks.

[Barbara Keeley]

I have to tell the Home Secretary that for people who have had to wait weeks and faced a distressing situation—those with a small baby who have faced the knowledge that they might not be able to go on holiday and then had to pay extra and drive up to Durham to get their passport—there is nothing more irritating in the world than to be told that other people’s passport applications are being met in three weeks. I never think it is helpful; indeed, it is the worst thing imaginable to say to people, “Other people are all right. Sorry about you.” Will the Home Secretary say now whether my constituent, Mr Martin Griffin, whom I mentioned earlier, can be refunded for having to pay extra and drive up to Durham after weeks and weeks of stress for his wife—who is trying to look after their small baby—over whether that child would get its first passport? What the Home Secretary has said today is no help to him and he will be very angry indeed to hear it.

[Mrs May]

I absolutely recognise that some people have been suffering delays and have not received their passports within the three weeks. I say to the hon. Lady and to her right hon. and hon. Friends that it is important that people out there who are applying for their passports understand what the situation is—and the situation remains that, thanks to the very hard work of Passport Office staff in passport offices up and down the country, the vast majority of people are getting their passports within three weeks. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has spoken about an individual case, and other Members are raising individual cases, too. I understand why they are doing so, and I shall explain later how we hope to enhance our ability to deal with MPs’ queries on these matters and, as far as possible, to ensure that people are able to travel when they have booked their travel, and that they are able to get their passports in time.

[Yvette Cooper]

I noticed that the Home Secretary said that the proportion of straightforward applications being processed on time had dropped from 97% previously to 89% over the last couple of weeks, so the situation is getting worse. Will she clarify exactly what she means by “a straightforward application” and what proportion of passport applications are not “straightforward”?

[Mrs May]

The vast majority of applications are straightforward: renewal or replacement applications for which the forms have been properly completed and all the required documents are available. Those applications are processed more easily than first-time applications because the individual has all the information that they need to provide. It is the case that first-time applications take longer than three weeks, and we have always been clear, as the Passport Office has always been clear, that first-time applications take longer because, of course, an interview is needed. That is part of the security that was introduced for passports, and I think we were absolutely right to introduce it. I shall see if I can get a precise figure for the right hon. Lady.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked a straightforward question—will the extra costs that people are incurring be refunded?

[Mrs May]

I was clear last week and again this week that we are making particular arrangements for people who find themselves outside the three-week timetable and have to travel within the next seven days, to ensure that they can be upgraded and receive their passport in time, and that those individuals will receive a refund.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I respect the Home Secretary for saying sorry, but under the circumstances, “sorry” is an easy word. What has happened is that people have been harmed: they have lost money, they have lost holidays and they have incurred costs. If the Home Secretary is sorry, will she back it up by ensuring that people are recompensed?

[Mrs May]

I have said that we are making arrangements —I said the same in the House last week—to ensure that people who have an urgent need to travel but have not received their passports within three weeks can be upgraded free of charge.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach as I welcome the measures she has put in place to deal with these matters. In response to what the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has just said, will she confirm that, particularly in the case of first-time applications and cases that are not straightforward, these are important and sensitive documents, and security must always come first?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why those applications take more time and why it is important to have first-time interviews. Some people may have applied thinking that they had a straightforward case, but because documents are missing, the form has not been completed properly, or the Passport Office has a query about the information provided, their case ceases to be straightforward and becomes more complex, thus taking longer to deal with.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman recently had an Adjournment debate on this subject, but I will give way to him.

[Mr Robinson]

If I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to say further things later. The Home Secretary is evading a simple question. Many people have incurred extra costs because of the incompetence and bungling that, as the Select Committee evidence made clear, sadly exists within HMPO. They are now writing to their MPs asking us to press the case on the Government, particularly in respect of the extra £73 they have had to pay through no fault of their own. Any private sector company would have to make allowance for that and reimburse people. That is what we look to the Government to do. Irrespective of whether the Home Secretary has an answer now or later, the question will not go away.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman characterised the Passport Office in a particular way, which I think was unfortunate in respect of the staff. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman referred to what was happening in the Passport Office in a particular way, and I am simply saying that the staff—my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister and I have met and spoken to them—are working very hard to try to ensure that they turn round passports. As I indicated here last week, we have set in place arrangements—they have been in operation over the last weekend—to help those who find themselves unable to travel within seven days. Those are the free-of-charge arrangements that we have put in place—it is not a refund, as people are able to upgrade free of charge within those time scales.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Clearly, there are issues at the Passport Office that need resolving. However, I would like to pass on my thanks, through the Home Secretary, to our hon. Friend the Immigration Minister and his officials who have done a sterling job in helping me and doubtless other colleagues to deal with some urgent applications, ensuring that many people who were worried about not receiving their passports on time did get them on time. I am very grateful, and I want to put that on the record. The immigration Minister has been magnificent, and I hope that that sort of service will continue while the problems are ironed out.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. A lot of people are certainly putting in a lot of effort to make sure not only that those applying in the normal way get their passports within an appropriate time scale, but that when cases are brought to the attention of the Passport Office, they are dealt with as expeditiously as possible so that people can travel.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I have been generous in granting interventions, but I am barely into the start of my speech. I will continue to be generous with interventions, but Opposition Members need to understand that at this stage I would like to make a little progress with my speech.

I have explained that HMPO is dealing with an unprecedented surge in demand for passports. HMPO has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] That is an additional 350,000 applications for passports and renewals in comparison with last year. Ever since this increase in applications became apparent back in January, HMPO has been putting in place measures to meet the demand. Some 250 additional staff have been transferred from back-office roles to front-line operations, while 650 additional staff have been provided to work on HMPO’s customer helpline. HMPO has been operating seven days a week since March and couriers are delivering passports within 24 hours of them being produced. On Monday, new office space was opened in Liverpool to provide the Passport Office with additional capacity. As I said to the House last week, however, even with those additional resources, HMPO is still not able to process every application it receives within the three-week waiting time for straightforward cases.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Home Secretary has set out some things that the Passport Office is doing to resolve the issue, but it could all have been avoided. We heard at yesterday’s Home Affairs Select Committee meeting that Mr Jones, who represents the Public and Commercial Services Union, that for a number of months—not just two months, but for the last year or two—the union has been explaining to the management that they simply do not have enough staff to deal with the number of applications. That message was repeated to management time and again, but the management wilfully refused to engage with their staff on that issue. Had they done so, this would not have happened.

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Lady will be a little patient, she will hear me address the issue of staffing later in my speech. Let me now repeat what I have just said. Since January, Her Majesty’s Passport Office has been increasing the resources that will enable it to deal with passport applications in response to an increase in demand from the public, and the overwhelming majority of passports are being issued within service standards.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary, on behalf of my constituency staff, thank the staff who man the MPs hotline? They have been offering us a very good service, enabling us to work with our constituents to ensure that they receive their passports in time.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend. As I shall explain shortly, we intend to increase the support that is available to Members of Parliament.

As I was saying, the overwhelming majority of passports are being issued within service standards, but, as I said earlier in response to an intervention, that is no consolation for people who are experiencing delays, or are worried about whether they will be able to go on their summer holidays. I entirely understand the deep frustration and anxiety that that must cause, which is why I want to ensure that people obtain their new passports as quickly as possible.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Home Secretary is boasting about all the extra support that is being provided. My constituents Paul and Isabelle Chambers applied for a passport in March, and are due to travel on 14 July. Mr Bagnall also applied in March. Kimberley Bullock, who had married and changed her name, applied for a new passport more than six weeks ago, and is due to travel on 9 July. What guarantees can the Home Secretary give those people that they will receive their passports in time?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to be able to comment on an individual case when I do not know the details. I assume that he has been in touch with the MPs helpline, but obviously I will try to ensure that appropriate follow-up action is taken in relation to cases that are raised in the Chamber this afternoon.

As I have said, I entirely understand the frustration and anxiety of people who are worried about whether they will receive their passports before they are due to travel. That is why, last week, I announced a package of additional measures to help the Passport Office to meet demand and deliver passports on time, while still maintaining the security of the document.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary accept that there is something wrong with the support system for British citizens who are living overseas when they are having to phone my constituency office to ask me to intervene on their behalf?

[Mrs May]

There are a number of issues that I shall address later in my speech, but let me say this to the hon. Lady. We want a passport system that ensures that people can apply for their passports and receive them within a reasonable time. The majority of those whose applications are straightforward are receiving their passports within the time scale that has been set, but when we deal with passport applications, it is important for us to carry out the necessary checks. Sometimes information will not have been submitted, or someone will not have filled in the form correctly, and it will be necessary to contact the person again. That means that delivering the passport will take longer.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary said a few moments ago that 3.3 million passport applications had been received, as opposed to 2.95 million last year. One would expect foreign residents to account for at least half that increase, as a result of her decision to close the international centres. Can she tell us what proportion of the increase in demand is due to overseas applications, and what proportion is due to applications from domestic residents?

[Mrs May]

I shall come to the figures relating to the number of foreign applications, and to the issues that have been raised about whether this is all due to overseas applications, which it is not.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Home Secretary has made it clear to Opposition Members who have intervened—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This sounds very much like a continuation of the debate. I hope that it is not.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

No, it is not, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking clarification from you. Opposition Members have been told that if they have a problem with an individual case, they should pursue it through the MPs helpline or the usual channels, but it was made clear in a response to a similar intervention by a Government Member that the Immigration Minister had been contacted directly. I ask for your support, Madam Deputy Speaker. As someone who speaks up for all the representatives in the House, do you agree that the same facility should be afforded to all Members, regardless of political party?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Home Secretary has heard that point very clearly, and I am sure that, given the chance, she will deal with it directly so that the position is clear to Members.

[Mrs May]

Opposition Members have indeed been getting in touch with the Immigration Minister. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), texted me on Saturday, and I was able to ensure that someone from the Passport Office—[Interruption.] I hear some complaints from behind me from colleagues who are not able to text because they do not have my number.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to pursue the point. I am not sure that it can be pursued any further, but he can try if he wishes.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Home Secretary for that welcome clarification. May I ask her to state clearly that those such as me who are dealing with individual cases that it has not been possible to sort out via the usual channels of the back office or the MPs hotline—including cases of people who have been charged for the privilege of sorting out this mess while she was on her feet last week—can take those cases directly to her or to her Immigration Minister?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that Members of Parliament have been anxious to ensure that they receive a proper response from the MPs hotline. I shall explain shortly what we will do to improve the service, so that the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to find an alternative way of dealing with such cases.

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

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must make some progress.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Immigration Minister receives weekly updates on passport performance? Back in 2009, when I was the passports Minister, we saw a big dip in passport applications, and at that point we discussed what would happen when the inevitable increase came, as it now has. All the talk about solving problems is a sticking plaster to cover a problem that should have been identified by Ministers in good enough time for them to tackle it.

[Mrs May]

Of course Ministers receive regular reports on what is happening in the Passport Office, just as other parts of the Home Office receive regular reports on various aspects of the immigration system. Of course, the Immigration Minister is currently receiving updates more regularly than is usually the case. [Interruption.] Members are asking me a number of questions which I shall be able to address later in my speech if they will be a little patient and allow me to make some progress.

Let me now say something about the package of additional measures that I announced last week. First, as I said earlier, when people have an urgent need to travel and their applications have been with the Passport Office for longer than three weeks through no fault of their own, the Passport Office will fast-track them without charge. To qualify, they must have booked to travel in the next seven days, and they will need to provide proof of their travel plans. The upgrade will be available until further notice, and I can tell the House that since its introduction, 800 customers have used it to ensure that they receive their passports.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

No. I am going to make a bit of progress.

Secondly, those who apply from overseas to renew their passports for travel to the United Kingdom will be given a 12-month extension of their existing passports. To prevent abuse, this will be limited to people who have an existing passport that expired within the last six months, that is valid for three months, or—where a customer needs to travel to a country that requires a minimum of six months’ remaining validity on a passport —that is valid for seven months. This service, which is also free of charge, is being implemented by consular and embassy staff in the country of application. Overseas posts have been provided with stamps to provide this service and customers are already booking appointments for this service, which will be available from Monday. Where a customer has had their passport extended in this way, HMPO will contact them later to arrange the next steps for getting a new full passport.

Thirdly, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now issuing emergency travel documents for children who need to travel to the UK.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

Will the hon. Gentleman have a little patience and let me complete my paragraph?

As I said to the House last week, parents will still have to provide comprehensive proof confirming identity, nationality and parental responsibility for the child before we issue these documents, as we are not prepared to compromise on child protection, but this should help to relieve the administrative burden on the Passport Office.

[Stephen Doughty]

If what the Home Secretary has said is true, why are constituents of mine contacting me from Qatar saying that they are unable to get these emergency travel documents at the British embassy there? Does it not just add to the sense of complete chaos and the lack of confidence in this process if people are not able to get the answers they need from FCO officials abroad?

[Mrs May]

I will of course ensure that inquiries are made into what has happened in relation to Qatar, but information has gone out from the Foreign Office to its posts—to our embassies and high commissions—about all the measures that have been put in place in relation to overseas applications. The hon. Gentleman has raised a particular point in relation to a particular country, however, and I will ensure that it is followed up.

[Julie Hilling]

The Home Secretary has been very generous with her time. The Indian Government are saying that they will not allow emergency documentation if people have already applied for a passport. They have either got to cancel their application for a passport or get the emergency travel document, but that does not necessarily guarantee that they will be able to travel on it from India because the Indian Government have previously said they will not recognise it. This is a dire situation for a number of people trapped in India at the moment, particularly those who have gone there to collect surrogate children. Will the Home Secretary look at this issue seriously and urgently?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that the circumstances that sometimes apply to individuals who have gone abroad to collect surrogate children can be complicated. The hon. Lady mentioned a particular issue about emergency travel documents. We have been very clear that they are for children who need to travel to the United Kingdom, and there is obviously no question but that those will be recognised here. As I have made clear, we must ensure that it is possible to provide proof of the relationship with children and the parenthood—in this case the surrogate parenthood—of individuals with children, because we want to make sure that we are looking securely at cases that may relate to child protection. The Foreign Office is talking to some other countries about these issues, however. These are not new documents that are suddenly being issued. The emergency travel documents are issued in other, normal circumstances, where it is necessary for somebody to have a document to travel, perhaps for compassionate reasons. So it is not the case that any different approach should be taken to them in the current situation. Again, however, the hon. Lady has raised a particular issue, and I will ensure that she gets an answer in respect of India. As I have said, there are complications in terms of surrogacy; these applications are not straightforward. I am sure she will understand the reasons why I say that.

[Mr MacNeil]

On overseas applicants, may I press the Home Secretary on the constituent I mentioned earlier? Having abandoned her UK application and having now opted for a Canadian passport for her son, she is still waiting for her passport to come back from the UK Passport Office. Will the Home Secretary guarantee that if that passport does not arrive in Hong Kong, carried by DHL, in time for her booked flight at the end of June, she will be able to travel back to Scotland for a christening? Further, how many of these passport applications are for people travelling in the first instance to Schengen countries?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman asked me a question which I understood to be about an individual who was getting a Canadian passport in order to be able to travel, and then asked whether I was going to guarantee they would get their UK passport.

[Mr MacNeil]

After this debacle, the constituent in Hong Kong is now awaiting the return of a passport from the UK Passport Office. She has already waited two months. She is worried it will not arrive in time for her travel. I am merely asking the Home Secretary to guarantee that if it does not return in time to her home in Hong Kong, she will allow her to travel back to Scotland for a christening at the end of the month.

[Mrs May]

Of course I cannot stand up in the House of Commons and give a guarantee that somebody will be admitted across the border when I do not know the circumstances. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is making every effort to ascertain from the Passport Office when a passport will be issued and whether it will be with his constituent in time for her to be able to travel for this event, and I am sure he will take that matter up with the MPs hotline.

In addition to the contingency measures I announced last week, HMPO is continuing to ramp up its operations. More people are being trained so that we can increase the number of examiners and call-handlers. An additional 200 people will soon be supporting front-line operations. As I have said, the number of people handling calls on the helpline has increased from 350 to over 1,000, and HMPO expects this number to rise to over 1,300 by the end of June.

In addition to these measures, I have introduced changes to improve the service provided to Members of Parliament who are seeking information about constituents’ passports. From Monday of this week, 20 additional staff were assigned to respond to those queries.

I also want to assure the House that HMPO staff are working extremely hard, around the clock, seven days a week, to ensure that people get their new passports as rapidly as possible. I have heard of numerous cases where HMPO staff have been praised for their helpfulness and professionalism and the compassion they have shown to people in difficult circumstances. I have met staff at the HMPO office in Peterborough and spoken to HMPO staff in several offices, and I would like to place on the record my gratitude for the extra lengths to which those staff are going in order to fix the problem, meet the demand and continue to serve the public.

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

The Home Secretary is being very generous with her time. I would also like to add my thanks to the Passport Office.

Over the past few weeks, several constituents of mine have had their passports delayed. The worst case involved people who were meant to be travelling today and had to have their lost passports—they had been sent to the wrong address—couriered over to them.

Why have contingency arrangements only just been introduced? This situation should have been foreseen. Who was responsible for this?

[Mrs May]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady did not hear what I said earlier in my speech. Contingency arrangements have not just been introduced. Contingency arrangements have been being introduced since January of this year when it became clear that there was an increase above forecast in the demand for applications. As the demand has increased, and as the increase has been greater than that initially experienced, of course the Passport Office takes greater measures. That is right and proper. The Passport Office has increased its capability.

[John McDonnell]

I join the Home Secretary in congratulating the staff on their hard work, and I think that that is shared across the whole House, but is she aware that Passport Office staff are paid £3,000 less than equivalent grades in the Home Office?

There was a mechanism in the Passport Office where if the backlog got to 150,000, measures would automatically be put in place to deal with it. Management took the decision to increase that figure to 350,000. Was the Home Secretary aware of that, and why did it happen?

[Mrs May]

I am, of course, aware that there are different pay structures for HMPO and Home Office staff, and I will come on to address the issue of what people are referring to as a backlog and whether the figures people are referring to as being a backlog are actually a backlog. I take issue with the figures the hon. Gentleman has given. I want to turn to some of the claims that have been made.

[Richard Fuller]

Just before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I ask her about something that I raised earlier with the shadow Home Secretary? A number of my constituents have had concerns about their passports taking longer than the established time to arrive, and many of those concerns have been addressed. But I have also been contacted by constituents who are within the normal time for passport applications. Is my right hon. Friend concerned that raising people’s anxieties unnecessarily is making the situation worse, because they are chasing for the return of their passport in a shorter period than normal? What is her advice to people in those circumstances?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. When I was at the passport office in Peterborough, staff told me that a number of people, on hearing the publicity, had been contacting them about what was happening. These were people who would be getting their passports within the time frame, but their anxieties had been raised by what they had been hearing about the Passport Office. As I said, we must be clear that while some people have not been getting their passports within the normal time frame and while some people have been having difficulties in relation to their travel—we have been taking steps to alleviate that, as I announced last week—the vast majority are still receiving their passports within the three-week period. It is important that we provide that reassurance to people.

Before I deal with some of the Opposition’s claims about what is behind the surge in demand for passport applications, I should emphasise that it is clear that HMPO’s modelling failed, and we will need to address that. Likewise, there will undoubtedly be measures that we will need to take to improve the productivity and efficiency of the organisation in future. I have already said that I am considering removing HMPO’s agency status so that it can be made directly accountable to Ministers. I want to correct some of the claims that have been made in the past week or so. First, it is not true that this happened as a direct result of the decision to move the processing of overseas passport applications to the UK. HMPO and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimated that demand for overseas passport applications would be between 350,000 and 400,000 per year. Coincidentally, the surge in demand for passports represents about 350,000 more applications than last year. The vast majority of the surge is caused by domestic applications.

Secondly, it is not true that the delay in processing applications was caused by staff reductions. In fact, over the past couple of years, staff numbers in HMPO have risen, not fallen. On 31 March this year, HMPO had 3,444 full-time equivalent staff, up from 3,260 in 2013 and 3,104 in 2012.

[Yvette Cooper]

Of the 350,000 to 400,000 additional passports applied for in the past six months, what proportion is from overseas residents?

[Mrs May]

I will get the exact figure checked and give it to the right hon. Lady.

The Opposition have repeatedly compared current staffing levels with those in 2010 but, as they well know, HMPO was not just a passport office in 2010. It was called the Identity and Passport Service because of the previous Government’s plan to maintain an identity database and introduce identity cards. One of the first things this Government did in 2010 was scrap ID cards and destroy the identity database. The Opposition know therefore that their comparison with 2010 does not stand up to scrutiny.

Thirdly, it is not true that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Home Secretary be absolutely clear about how many of those staff were employed on ID work?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has been ploughing this furrow for some considerable time. He knows full well that, as a result of doing away with the ID card scheme and the identity database, it was possible to take action both in relation to staff numbers and to the closure of certain premises. The Opposition consistently raise that issue. They say that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises. Those measures were taken because HMPO had too much office space after we scrapped ID cards. The Newport passport office continues to operate as a customer support centre and to offer face-to-face passport application services for premium and fast-track customers. It has 150 full-time equivalent posts.

[Paul Flynn]

Sadly, the Newport office is closed. It is no longer a fully fledged office. It does not have the ability to deal with postal applications. In this crisis, hundreds of people have been forced to go to Liverpool to get their passports. We have half a passport office in Newport, which is a disgrace, as Wales deserves at least one fully fledged passport office.

[Mrs May]

Obviously, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s very particular constituency interest in this issue, but he does make the statement, as others do, that the Newport passport office has closed. The Newport office continues to operate as a customer support centre with 150 full-time equivalent posts.

I also want to address the allegations about a backlog and this issue about the figures. It is usual during peak periods for HMPO to operate with high numbers of passport applications in the system at any one time. This is normal work in progress. There can be 350,000 to 400,000 applications being processed at any given time. The overwhelming majority are dealt with within the three-week service standard.

As things stand, HMPO is receiving up to 150,000 domestic applications each week, and around 9,000 overseas applications. Around 480,000 applications are currently being dealt with, compared with 350,000 to 450,000 in normal circumstances. The figure will vary from week to week depending on passports issued, applications withdrawn and applications received. I should be clear about the figures. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said that there was a backlog of hundreds of thousands, but there is no backlog of 480,000 cases. That number represents the total number of cases in HMPO’s system at present.

As the Prime Minister told the House last week, there is a number of straightforward cases that would ordinarily have been processed within the three-week service time that are not being processed quickly enough. That number, as of the beginning of this week, is approximately 50,000.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Although the changes to the passport process are appreciated and welcomed, I must point out that in Scotland the holiday period comes earlier. For my constituents, the traditional holiday period starts at the beginning of July, so they have been through the turmoil. Will the Home Secretary reimburse them for the extra money they have had to pay out to get their passports?

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of the holiday period in Scotland. I have spoken to the manager of the passport office in Glasgow, and he told me about the arrangements that have been put in place to ensure that the office is dealing with the increased number of applications. For example, extra appointments are available for people who wish to bring in their applications in person.

[Mr McKenzie]

Will the Home Secretary then explain why many of my constituents are being asked to travel to Liverpool to pick up passports?

[Mrs May]

The Glasgow office is making every effort to ensure that people’s passports are being dealt with in time. It is the case that sometimes passport applications are being dealt with by other offices, but that is only when those offices have some flexibility within their system to be able to deal with those cases. This is about trying to ensure that we are dealing with the applications so that people get their passports. I am sure that that is exactly what hon. Members of this House would expect the Passport Office to do.

Her Majesty’s Passport Office has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] That is an unprecedented surge, but striving to meet customers’ expectations is vital even during busy periods. As I made clear last week, in the longer term the answer is to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently and effectively as possible, and that it is as accountable as possible. As I told the House last week, I have asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews. The first will ensure that HMPO works as efficiently as possible, with better processes, better customer service and better outcomes. As part of that review, the head of Home Office Science will be reviewing HMPO’s forecasting model.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I am coming close to the end of my speech.

Mark Sedwill will also be reviewing HMPO’s agency status and looking at whether HMPO should be brought back into the Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers in line with other parts of the immigration system since the abolition of the UK Border Agency.

Passports are important security documents, but they are also the important means by which people live their lives. Likewise, the numbers we have talked about today are not just statistics but people who want to know that they will get their passports in time for their holidays and for other pressing travel plans. As I said, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; she has been very generous. She obviously has not been able to get the precise figure that I asked for before she sits down. I hope that the Minister for Security and Immigration will be able to get that before he stands up. As I understand it, she said that the Passport Office is experiencing 150,000 domestic applications and 9,000 overseas applications. Given the figures that she has also given us about the 2.95 million last year and the 3.3 million this year, those figures suggest that the overseas applications account for at least half the increase in applications that we have seen. Can she say whether that is the case, and will she take one final opportunity to tell us whether she will refund the extra fees that people have paid in order to get their passports on time? They have already paid the fee. Will she refund it?

[Mrs May]

Of the 3.3 million figure, about 6% are overseas applications. That is why I said what I did about the surge that has been coming through.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed. To anybody who is unable to travel because of delays caused by HMPO, the Government are sorry. It is important to remember that the vast majority of people—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I have indicated to the right hon. Lady that I will get her some more precise figures—

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary said that the figure had gone up from 2.95 million to 3.3 million. That is about a 10% increase. She has now said that 6% of that was overseas applications. They were not happening in previous years. Therefore, there has been only a 4% increase in domestic applications. Can she confirm those figures?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is wrong on that, which is why I suggested that it is perhaps better if I set out the figures to her in writing so that she is absolutely clear about them, rather than trying to make back of the envelope calculations in the Chamber.

It is important to remember that the vast majority of people are still receiving their passports within the expected three weeks, but the Government are putting in place measures to make sure that HMPO can process passport applications without the delays we have seen. HMPO staff are working tirelessly. The pinch points are being addressed, more staff are being trained and brought on board, and the measures I announced to the House last week are being implemented. More passports are being issued, and people who need to travel urgently can have their application fast-tracked without charge if their application has been with the Passport Office for longer than three weeks.

We are not going to be able to wish this problem away or fix everything overnight, but the measures that the Government are taking mean that HMPO can get to grips with its work load, meet the demand that it is facing and make sure that the public get the service they deserve. That is why the House should vote against the Opposition’s motion and vote with the Government today.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a strictly time-limited debate. The speeches of the two Front-Bench spokesmen have taken between them an hour and 26 minutes, and one reason for that is the acceptance of intervention after intervention after intervention from Members, many of whom have left the Chamber without bothering to listen to the rest of the debate. The consequence of that is that the rest of us have only six minutes, in which it is impossible to develop any kind of coherent or articulate argument. When will this be put right?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Sir Gerald, that point of order has just taken more time from the debate. As you will know, how long Front-Bench spokesmen take to open the debate is not a matter for the Chair. This is a time-limited debate, and we now do not have enough time for every speaker who wishes to contribute.

I agree, Sir Gerald, with your point with regard to interventions being made by Members who then leave the Chamber. The convention is quite clear. Those Members should have stayed, at least until the Home Secretary sat down. I have drawn this to the attention of the Whips, and I hope that those Members will be told that interventions take other speakers’ time.

We have a six-minute time limit. We will start with six minutes. Not every Member will get in if it remains at six minutes, so I will have to review it. Some Members may decide to withdraw their names; let us wait and see.

14:16

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The former Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), described the passport service as gold-plated, but it has gone from being a swan to an ugly duckling in just 12 months. After the Home Affairs Committee took evidence from the chief executive of the Passport Office, there is no denying that there is a crisis. I welcome what the Home Secretary has done during the last seven days. These are important measures that I hope will alleviate the real distress that many of our constituents have suffered during the last few months. I wish those measures had been put in place much earlier, but it is far too early to judge what Ministers did or did not do at the relevant time. Suffice it to say that it is important that we deal with the crisis as quickly as possible.

The Home Secretary is right: 493,289 cases represent work in progress. But the word “backlog” is used quite a lot. One of the problems is that those in the Home Office regard a backlog as being everything outside service standard times. They also define a service standard time. For many years, the Home Affairs Committee, in our reports, has not accepted the use of that phrase. We have looked at the amount of work in progress; what the public want is to be able to submit a passport application, pay a fee and get good value for money. We should not have to praise the Passport Office and say it is doing a good job because we can ring to have complaints dealt with. Frankly, that is what it should be doing all the time.

We must remind ourselves, Madam Deputy Speaker—I congratulate you on your appointment as a dame—that we should not need to wait for facts and figures. I want to spend the very short time that I have, which is getting even shorter, on the evidence given by the chief executive of the Passport Office. I was hugely disappointed by what Mr Paul Pugh had to say; he is, after all, being paid more than the Minister for Security and Immigration. I would have expected the chief executive of an agency of the Crown to be able to judge the huge increase in passport applications that began earlier this year.

The Select Committee asked for the facts and figures that the Home Secretary was unable to give us today—she clearly does not have them all with her—to be delivered to it before the evidence session. At 2.45 yesterday afternoon, when the session began, and by implication the entire staff would have been present at the hearing, we received an e-mail saying that the figures had not been verified. These are normal statistics that should be on the desk of Ministers every week.

It is a long time since I have been a Minister, but when I had responsibility for entry clearance, I demanded on a weekly basis the number of cases that were going to appeal, partly because of the letters I received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), to make sure that the backlog was brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

The Home Secretary was right to visit Peterborough. I visited the Passport Office in London last Friday and I agree with her—there are some extremely hard-working staff there who are putting in a lot of hours. Many of them are working overtime, but many are very new. Of the four members of staff I spoke to on reception at Globe house, all had been appointed in the past fortnight. I am not sure whether they have the necessary training. They were all very pleasant and courteous and were doing their best, but it looks a bit like management by panic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said yesterday during the session. We do not expect that of an agency with the kind of reputation that the Passport Office has.

[Mr MacNeil]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Keith Vaz]

I will not, as time is short.

I, too, have had to contact the Home Office over urgent cases. I rang the Home Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), a second after I rang the head of the Passport Office on Saturday. The hon. Gentleman was obviously on constituency business. I do not blame him; he is always good at returning my calls. I then texted the Home Secretary to tell her that I had a constituent outside Durham who was not able to get a passport to catch a plane. She responded. I have been offered money for her phone number, but I am not giving it away. I am keeping it to myself in case I need it again.

We should not have to ring the Home Secretary to get these things done. They should be done by the chief executive of the agency, and he should be able to complete his work properly. I commend the work of his private office. When we have raised cases, the staff there have been very good, Farooq Belai in particular, and so has the Home Secretary’s own private secretary, Alison Samedi.

The matter rests with Mr Pugh. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) said sorry is an easy word. Sir Elton John said, “Sorry seems to be the hardest word”. It took Mr Pugh three attempts to say sorry. Enough of apologies. Let us get on with a clear timetable and let us restore the issuing of passports in the posts abroad as the best way of dealing with the problem.

14:22

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I should start by putting on the record my regret for those four constituents who contacted me because they were experiencing difficulties. Three of them were dealt with immediately and just one had to wait one extra day for a passport.

I confess to being a little surprised that the Opposition have used this first Opposition day for a debate on this subject, given that the Government have responded so fully over recent days to take the action necessary. In the hour and a half I have been sitting in the Chamber, nobody has answered the question why there has been such unprecedented additional demand. I suggest that in addition to continued falls in inflation and unemployment, the demand for passport renewals and replacements—at its highest for 12 years, with over 350,000 additional applications lodged compared with the same time last year—is a clear sign that overseas travel is higher on the agenda for many businesses and families than could have been anticipated earlier this year.

The Opposition frequently inform us that we should learn the lessons of the past. I agree—it is important that we learn from previous experiences. The Passport Office currently has a considerable number of applications to process, but 15 years ago, under the previous Administration, the number was not 480,000, but 565,000 at the height of the 1999 crisis. But the most important figure is that of the 480,000 cases currently in progress—just 30,000, or six in every hundred, are being dealt with outside the normal three-week waiting time.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Glen]

No. Given the limitations on time and given what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said earlier, I shall carry on.

More than 500 people missed their travel dates in 1999, and the Government then paid out over £124,000 in compensation for missed holidays, honeymoons and business trips. More than half of all calls failed to get through to the agency. The emergency measures put in place by the then Government cost a total of £12.6 million, including £16,000 spent on umbrellas for people queuing in the rain for hours.

It is important that today we reflect on what happened 15 years ago. It took the Government five months to get a grip of the problem and to put emergency measures in place, in stark contrast to what we have seen from this Home Secretary and this Government. The Government are not simply throwing extra resources at the difficulties; they are taking proportionate steps to reallocate 250 staff and add 650 staff to customer helplines. That action was taken quickly. The wider concerns that have been generated have increased unnecessary calls, leading to an extra administrative burden on the Passport Office. Let us put the situation in context. Between January and May, 99% of passports were issued within four weeks. That is a pretty impressive outcome.

As I said earlier, four constituents contacted me. One of them had to delay his holiday by one day, which is incredibly significant for him and his wife. I very much hope the Government will make it clear how compensation in such circumstances can be gained and the best way to approach that. I also hope that this afternoon’s debate is an opportunity for the Government to outline once again the considerable and sensible steps they have taken to ensure that people can receive their passports as soon as possible.

My councillor, Ian McLennan, a tenacious Labour councillor, was hoping to depart on a cruise with his wife but unfortunately the passport reached them one day late. He is the only constituent of mine who has experienced any meaningful problems. I see no reason why my constituency should be any different from any other. I hope that when the reviews take place, we look at some—

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Glen]

No. I shall carry on because time is so short, as I said earlier.

It is important that when the reviews are undertaken, we look at new ways of improving processes so that seasonal demand is reduced. We know when people’s passports will expire. Why they cannot anticipate that and apply several months before they need to, and be encouraged to do so by the Passport Office, should be investigated. I conclude by commending the actions taken by the Home Secretary and the ministerial team under difficult circumstances. I am surprised that the Opposition have wasted valuable time on this subject.

14:28

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is shuffling out, as she always does when anything sensible is being said—the worst Home Secretary of my 44 years in the House of Commons, as we have seen today. There she goes, useless and arrogant. This week, she announced a new priority visitor visa system for tourists from China—a country that carries out executions and torture, imprisons without trial and gags free speech, while British citizens are harassed, delayed and fended off by an unresponsive lack of a system bizarrely called a “responder hub”.

I get an incessant flow of passport cases; the pile I have here has arrived since Thursday. Time and again constituents tell me what they are going through. Here is one example:

“I am making myself ill with worry…I continue to be fobbed off by the 0300 helpline. I am so frustrated as I cannot even discuss this with anyone as they will not even give me a direct number for the Liverpool office!”

Here is another:

“We have been wasting time and money running after solicitors and the British embassy, who are not helping us or guiding us about the process.”

Here is another:

“I will now need to take 2 days off work and also pay the last-minute travel costs to get from Manchester to London and back (twice) in order to apply for a visa”.

Another:

“The main advice line for the passport office constantly gives incorrect information, which leads to a phone call every day as we are now panicking and worried sick… I suffer with anxiety and panic disorder and this is causing me so much stress each and every day.”

Yet another:

“I applied for a renewal passport on May the seventh 2014 and today still have received nothing. If I do not go on 20th, I will have to lose a lot of money.”

I could read many more.

The situation is a scandal caused by a lack of concern and interest not lower down the organisation—those people do as they are told—but at the very top. It was typical of the Home Secretary to scoot out of here after listening to only two Back-Bench speeches; she goes off to do a job that she is incapable of doing anyhow. I have been a Member of this House for 44 years, and in that time there have been 18 Home Secretaries—10 Tory and eight Labour. They have varied in quality, but every single one of them, Tory and Labour, made themselves accessible to me as a Labour Back Bencher. Douglas Hurd would invite me to his office to discuss immigration and deportation cases, and William Whitelaw was a serious Home Secretary.

I do not know what elevated ideas this Home Secretary has about her quality and personality. All I can say is that this coming Saturday—my birthday, since I am talking about anniversaries—she will become the longest serving Home Secretary of all the 18 I have known in this House, yet she has done less than any other because, unlike them, she will not touch an individual case. Douglas Hurd, William Whitelaw, David Waddington and all the rest did, but she does not. I simply cannot understand why she thinks that she is too good for the rest of us. That is the attitude she is taking in this situation. She is not accessible in any way.

If the Home Secretary dealt with cases, she would know the problems of administration and understand what is going on, but she is at a distance. We have to drag her here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) did last week, to get anything out of her. She has done nothing to sort this out. She can babble on as much as she likes about identity cards, but four years and one month later that has nothing whatever to do with it. This mess is the Home Secretary’s personal responsibility, and our constituents will remember that.

14:33

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I normally like to say that it is a pleasure to follow a Member who has just spoken, but I am afraid that I cannot do so on this occasion. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) should be ashamed of himself. Having listened to his diatribe, I hope that he has tried to contact the Home Secretary, because if he has not he should explain that to the House.

I want to start by congratulating the Home Secretary. There will always be issues, crises and developments in Departments such as the Home Office, as we all know on both sides of the House, so it is not the avoiding of a problem that is the measure of a Home Secretary; it is how they deal with it when it arises. How has the Home Secretary dealt with this problem? She has done so in an exemplary fashion. Her Majesty’s Passport Office has been responding since the start of this year, not at the height of the season, during the summer months, because staff were brought in to respond to extra demand in January.

We must ask ourselves why there has been this substantial increase in demand, the biggest intake at this time of year for 12 years. Perhaps it is something to do with the improving economy under this Government. The economy is up because the long-term economic plan is working, so more business people need passports to travel and more people are going on holiday. How else could one account for the enormous increase in the millions of applications? To deal with that, 200 staff have been redeployed from office roles to front-line operations, the passport helpline now has 1,000 staff dealing with the situation, and the Passport Office is open from 7 am to midnight seven days a week. That has resulted in a considerable improvement in the number of straightforward passport applications being dealt with within the stipulated time frame.

However, between January and May more than 97% of straightforward passport renewals and child applications were processed within the three weeks advertised on the website—by the way, the website gives three weeks as a recommended time frame, not a guarantee—and 99% have been processed within four weeks. As it happens, I do not think that we can say that is good enough, because even 1% represents a large number of people who have been seriously inconvenienced.

We should not allow the message to be transmitted that somehow this service is completely collapsing, as the Labour Opposition are trying to do, to the detriment of Passport Office staff across the country who are working extremely hard, as we can see, for many hours of the day and night to get the job done. Let us give them credit and accept that a 97% success rate for any branch of government is extremely impressive. If we could arrest 97% of burglars or stop 97% of fires, we would be doing rather well. However, I accept that even 3% or 1% is too large and that we always have to do better. That is why the Home Secretary has put in place the resources that we have heard described in detail today.

We have again heard allegations that this situation is the result of job cuts, but the contrary is actually the case. On 31 March the Passport Office had 3,444 full-time equivalent staff, which is more than in 2013 and 2012. Comparisons are inaccurately drawn with 2010. As has already been explained, in 2010 this Government rightly scrapped Labour’s ID cards policy, so the Passport Office, as it is now constituted, is dealing with different things. Staff numbers have gone up.

We must also bear in mind the paramount importance of security. This country has a gold-standard passport service, and our passports are considered to be the gold standard by other countries, including those in the European Union. Other countries respect the fact that a British passport is a document they can trust, because they know and acknowledge that a vast array of security checks are done before a passport is issued. We must ensure that there is no circumvention of those checks, because they are of paramount importance. There will be complex cases, because we have a very cosmopolitan society and people want passports from around the world, and sometimes the checks take a while to complete, particularly because the other countries have their own time frames.

I acknowledge that there is a problem, but we have to bear in mind the points I have raised: resources are being put into this; the figures are improving; and the number of staff has increased. The so-called backlog is a misapprehension. We cannot count those figures that we would normally expect to see—150,000 a week—as a backlog. The figures for the past three weeks amount to a vast number, and they will continue to increase.

14:39

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I first want to thank and congratulate the front-office staff in passport offices. Someone said that they are only doing their job, and asked why we should thank them. I think that to have worked under the pressure that they have worked under, to have had angry people on the phone every time they pick it up and to have been badgered by MPs is to have done a tremendous job. I have had nothing but kindness, patience and tolerance when I have been in touch with staff in Belfast, Liverpool and, above all, Durham. I just think that they are worth more than the money that the Government are paying them, and I hope that they remember that.

However, I cannot say the same for the parliamentary hotline. Too often it has rung out—nobody has answered. The only job staff seem to do is to pass complaints to the passport office. Now that we have discovered a line that gets us through to Durham, we in Leeds have found that it is easier to speak to the ordinary staff: it gets the job done quicker, and we can speak to staff who have more knowledge. I expect more from a parliamentary hotline.

While I am getting out all my bad temper, I must say that I cannot understand what has happened to the invisible management. Normally, when we get through to an office, if the poor person who answers cannot deal with the problem, we ask to speak to a supervisor or a member of the management. It is impossible to speak to such a person. I have, however, noted that we can speak to the Minister for Security and Immigration, and that will be marvellous when we cannot get any answers.

I agree with what has been said about its being too soon to judge. For the people involved who are watching this, it will be quite painful to see Members from the two sides battling over figures, times and numbers, and over who is to blame. The dust will settle, and the Home Affairs Committee and other places will find out the facts and agree a sensible way forward.

The Home Secretary has put some stuff on the table that we hope will work. The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) said that we should congratulate her. The jury is still out, but she has not satisfied the minority who are bruised, harmed and out of pocket, or who have had real stress and worry about the whole exercise. Members are upset about the minority who have had to cancel holidays and to pay for delayed holidays, or who have been told by a passport office that they could have their passport if they paid an upgrade, which sounds terribly like blackmail. It sticks in the craw when we are told, “Look, things happen.” As the hon. Gentleman said, this is about how we react to what happens.

Ordinary people have gone through a terrible time. I have a story about an individual who put in for four passports before time: one came through, but the other three did not, and he had to pay about £180 to get them, and to travel 70 miles to Durham to pick them up. All that I and many Members in the Chamber wanted to hear from the Home Secretary was an acceptance that we all make mistakes, as do Governments of all hues. What should a Government do when they make a mistake that hurts someone? If they have caused distress or cost a family £180 to pay for another flight, it is not enough to say sorry. If this was a private firm, the Government and Members would be up in arms, saying, “Give people recompense. You’ve let them down.”

The point is that the Government knew for five months that they were running into trouble. Did they alert anyone to that fact? The answer is no. They did not change the website, and people put in for passports—putting their holidays in danger—because the Government did not come clean. My view is that they should kill the argument by saying, “We will give recompense. We will review every case put forward for recompense, and we will look at the individual circumstances.” That would have settled the matter. People have been hurt and mistakes have been made but, however those mistakes happened, we cannot let ordinary people suffer because of incompetence or such mistakes.

Finally, when I raised the issue with the Home Secretary last week, she did not answer my point about retrospective recompense, but she said that such a service would be free in future. That is confirmed by a document from the Library, but it points out that the free upgrade

“is only available to first time passport applicants if there are valid compassionate circumstances.”

That is the sort of nonsensical, empty phrase—with too many qualifications—that does this House no good. I genuinely hope that the Home Secretary has done her arithmetic, because that may be the problem. Arithmetic is nothing, however; we as politicians must keep our faith with ordinary people, which means that when we make a mistake or do something that hurts them, we put it right.

14:45

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I want to put on the record the number of my constituents affected. So far, we have taken up nine cases with the passport office in Northern Ireland, and those cases have been dealt with. We have three more outstanding cases, but we are waiting for information from the constituents concerned. The processes that have been put in place are therefore working. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) that it is a personal tragedy for every single person affected and their families, and we would hope not to be in such a situation.

I should declare that I worked at the passport office in Liverpool of an evening to work my way through university, and I spent many a pleasurable hour there. [Hon. Members: “We need you.”] Hon. Members will be delighted to know that when I was there we printed passports on a dot matrix printer, and we did 125 a night. Some of them were wonky, but people got their passports in the end. Mine were all pristine, and were always passed through as top quality. My point is that the staff in the Liverpool office have done a fantastic job, as have staff in other offices around the country.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking very highly of the Liverpool passport office. Does he not agree that Scotland, as a constituent part of the United Kingdom, deserves to have its own fully functioning and comprehensive Passport Office? It would of course have one after independence, and I am sure that some hon. Members in the Chamber would get an honorary passport.

[Stephen McPartland]

If the hon. Gentleman is so confident about independence, I have no need to answer that question.

During my wonderful time in Liverpool, earning a bit of money to get myself through my university years, the staff did a good job. Many of the staff are still there, although there have been a number of reorganisations. One key thing is that there were backlogs in those days. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made the key point that, between January and May, 99% of passports were processed in four weeks. I can tell hon. Members that that was not the case when I worked in the passport office in Liverpool. It took a lot longer than that, and we used to look at the passport applications, wondering why it had taken so long for them to reach us to be printed.

My brother and sister also worked in that passport office in Liverpool. There are many of us, and such things are often family affairs in the great city that I come from. They had different roles. My brother was one of the examiners responsible for identifying whether somebody had the status to be given a British passport.

Hon. Members may not appreciate that once somebody gets a British passport, they can use it as a gateway document to enable them to access a variety of benefits and services within the United Kingdom, so it is incredibly important. One issue with delays for a specific passport is that we may have to be very careful about the security of the application to ensure that the person who will get the passport has a right to services in the United Kingdom. Failure to do so or a knee-jerk reaction—

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen McPartland]

I will not give way again, because Madam Deputy Speaker wants us to make progress so that other Members can speak.

The passport is a key document. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury gave the important statistic that there were 565,000 documents in 1999. I should like to discuss my experience, because hon. Members will be shocked to discover that I was actually there when the work of the Passport Office was outsourced by the previous Government. In 1998, the Labour Government outsourced me to Siemens Business Services, which wanted to replace my dot-matrix computer with 125 passports on it with some high-falutin’ laser printer based in Manchester. We would examine the passports in Liverpool, and when we pressed “print” on our computers, they would be sent off to Manchester to be printed.

People will be shocked to discover that, during that period, there was complete and utter chaos. The roll-out was so poor that it was actually delayed in all the other passport offices in the United Kingdom. We had spoken to the unions, and to the Ministers involved, and they had been warned for more than 12 months that there would be utter chaos. I left the Passport Office in March 1999, and after it lost my services, there just happened to be a passport crisis that summer. I have no idea why that happened. I was beavering away doing the best I could, and when I left, there were problems.

There were huge problems in 1999. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has mentioned the fact that £12.6 million was paid out. My brother and sister were working in the passport office at the time, and they remember that angry people from all over the country, with their umbrellas, were forming huge queues round the India buildings. They were having to pay out, and it was a huge problem. Every one of those cases was a personal tragedy.

I find it upsetting that some Opposition Members have tried to suggest that the situation today is similar. What has happened over the past few months has been difficult for the individuals involved, but it is nothing like what it was then. I worked there; I experienced it and I can assure every Member that the word “chaos” does not do it justice. Towards the end of 1998, it was so bad that I was paid treble time to work on Sundays, with an extra £10 an hour just to turn up to work. I left university with no debts as a result of that, for which I am grateful to the previous Government. I took advantage of that overtime as much as I could. The reality was, however, that there were huge problems. What the Home Secretary has done over the past few months has resulted in a huge step forward from what I experienced when I was there some years ago.

I would like to put on record my gratitude to the staff in the Passport Office who have helped me and my constituents to get the nine passports that we have contacted the office about over the past few weeks. I give the Passport Office warning now on the Floor of the House that I shall be contacting it in the next few hours about a further three cases, when I have received further details from my constituents, and I hope that they will be processed just as fast.

We have to remember that there are human beings involved, and that the staff who are doing the examining and the printing are all doing the best they can. I was a little disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary saw fit to mock someone who was working on the advice line. I have been in that position myself, and it was very difficult when people were ringing from different countries and I was constantly fielding their concerns. That person will no doubt be disappointed to hear what she said. I want to put on record my thanks to the Home Secretary for her action to try to deal with the situation.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has sat down. He has run out of time. I am reducing the time limit to five minutes in order to ensure that all Members can speak in the debate. I hope that it will not be necessary to reduce it further, but this is a time-limited debate. I call Mr Geoffrey Robinson.

14:53

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your honour.

The Government are evading two fundamental questions, and if we do not get answers to them today, we shall go on pressing for them, because we are rightly being relentlessly pursued for answers by our constituents. The first question is: why are we in this crisis, and why is there such a shambles in the Department? We have not had an answer from the Government that makes any sense. They have tried to blame the massive increase on new people applying for passports, but their figures do not show that to be the case.

I have written a letter to the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), but he has not yet replied to it. I have not even had an acknowledgement, let alone an invitation to meet him. I have been received by many of his predecessors, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has referred to Mr Waddington in particular. Those Ministers met constituents when there was a problem. That course of action worked well, and I would recommend it to the Minister who is now in charge, even though he does not seem to be terribly interested in what I am saying.

The Government have increased the manpower. The crisis blew up during the January to May period and the Home Secretary has stood at the Dispatch Box and announced crisis measures to deal with it. What remains unclear is whether holidays for which flights and hotels have been booked will qualify as urgent business. I have not heard a clear answer from the Government on that yet.

This takes me to the main question. The Government have said that they are sorry, but if they say sorry, they have to mean it. Saying sorry means making amends; otherwise, it does not mean anything. It is just a word without a meaning. The Home Secretary has evaded the question three times when we have put it to her, but the Government must tell us what they are going to do in the cases where our constituents had done everything correctly and HMPO was at fault, resulting in them not getting their passports in time. Many of those people have lost money just trying to get their passports, never mind losing money on holiday bookings. The Government have to give us an answer to that question.

We need to know who took the decision to bring all the overseas passport work into the Department at the very time we were having a seasonal surge. I think it must have been the Home Secretary because she went out of her way to defend it today. However, she could not give us the basic statistics. If the relevant figure is 6% of 3.3 million, that equates to about 175,000, which is a good half of the 350,000 extra cases that came in this year. So it was clearly a bad—indeed, almost idiotic—management decision to take in the overseas passport work at that time.

I want to mention the case of Mrs Joanna Hughes. She applied online on 23 April to renew her daughter Ella’s passport, which she would need for a trip to Belgium for the world war one centenary celebrations on 19 June. The Passport Office advised her that the application would take up to three weeks to complete. About three weeks later, on 10 May, she received a letter from HMPO to tell her that the passport and photos had been lost within the passport department. It advised her to forward a new application form and photographs, which she did on 12 May. There was no delay there; she got on to it straight away. She sent the documents to the Glasgow priority handling office via Royal Mail special delivery. She told me:

“I finally received a call back on 29 May to be told that my application was with an examiner in Belfast, not Glasgow as previously advised.”

We can already see that there was a muddle in the department. There were a lot of people working on the application, but if there is criticism to be made, it is not of the people working on the process but of the organisation, of the ministerial decisions and of Mr Pugh himself. The problem lies with the organisation of the department itself.

Mrs Hughes continued:

“I was advised to send a Lost and Stolen form with a covering letter to Priority Handling Belfast which I had to download online to advise the very department who had lost the passport! Another special delivery was posted that day.”

I agree with her conclusion:

“I would like to receive a full apology and investigation into why my daughter’s old passport and photos were lost in a Government office and I want to receive full compensation for all the further expenditure I have had to make”.

She gives details of the expenditure, which comes to the best part of £153. The Government are responsible for that. What are they going to do—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

14:58

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Newport passport office was closed in 2011, despite fierce opposition from all the political parties in our area and from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). It was a tragedy from which the city has never recovered. It took the passport office out of the heart of the city. We now have half a passport office service there. The decision was taken for managerial reasons, and authorised by a civil servant. I am sure that her career will have prospered. However, the lives of 150 people in Newport were devastated by the change.

It is nonsense to say that the closures did not lead to this crisis; of course they played an important part. There would be 150 trained, skilled people working there to keep the backlog down if it had not been closed. When the Government start to restore the emaciated passport service that is left, they have an obligation to put the jobs back into the places from which they were so cruelly torn away in 2011.

I believe that this foul-up will become one of the signature foul-ups of this Government. They will be rejected by the public not because of Europe or any other great issue, but because they are guilty of creating an ineptocracy. Virtually nothing that they have done has worked. What has happened with Atos, Capita, G4S and the rest of those great enterprises that have been set up—with the mountain of complaints, hurt and anger from the public—will be the reason why the Government are rejected.

The Government’s reaction to the crisis has followed the usual pattern. First, they say that there is no crisis and ignore it, thinking that it will go away. They deny that the crisis is taking place. When it becomes a national scandal, as this one has in the past fortnight, their response is panic. There is management by panic. The Home Secretary came to the House and introduced half a dozen new measures. That is no way to run the place, when the whole crisis was predictable and, indeed, predicted. There is then a refusal to take responsibility and to accept blame. I asked the Home Secretary last week whether she had the humility and common sense to apologise. She did not.

Paul Pugh did apologise yesterday, but he then put forward the preposterous argument that, having been responsible for the foul-up, which he admits, he is the only person who is qualified to put it right. That is like saying that the greatest criminal is the best person to run the police service. It is an extraordinary argument. There would be great satisfaction among the many people who have been badly treated by this Government and Mr Pugh if he resigned. It would please those people and it would be no loss to the country.

We look forward to seeing what can be done with the passport service. It is a service with a great history. I have represented passport workers since 1972. The passport office came to Newport in 1967. I was a local councillor at that time and I know the service well. The last crisis that everyone made a big fuss about was a computer disaster. We virtually had two passport staffs—one employed by Siemens and one employed by the passport service—running in parallel.

That crisis was nowhere near as bad as this one. At no time has there been such a sense of anxiety and of being betrayed, with trips being made to places so far away. It is unprecedented. The public will not forget this and will not forgive the Government for it. When the reckoning is made, we will find that the costs have been enormous. The Government are not coming up with any figures at the moment, but they are compensating people here and there for lost holidays and all the rest of it. The huge amount of compensation will dwarf any savings that the Government made through their cruel cuts in 2011. The people of Newport will remember that and I am sure that they will do the right thing when they vote next year.

This is a Government of incompetence who have created an ineptocracy. That will be their political doom.

15:03

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

It is very good to follow my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn).

Like many Opposition Members, I want to speak up for my constituents who have incurred such difficulty and expense, but I will also speak for my constituents who work in the Newport passport office, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West, who is a strong advocate for the office. The staff have warned repeatedly over the past four years that the cuts to Passport Office staff would hit the service and affect customers. They and the Public and Commercial Services Union have been proved right. The Minister should at least acknowledge today that some of the decisions that have been made over the past few years have led to the backlog and the chaos. It is important that we have a chance to put that on the record today.

The Government did not foresee the increase in the demand for passports. They should at least have foreseen the effect of giving the responsibility for overseas passports to the Passport Office, because that was their decision. As has been outlined this afternoon, we are all dealing with many cases of people’s travel plans being put in jeopardy.

[Robert Flello]

I have done a quick tot up. I have been an MP for nine years. In the past two weeks, I have had nine times as many cases that involve passports as in the previous nine years.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It was a good point, well made. I am sure that the same is true of the cases in my office.

Like other hon. Members, I will outline the cases of a couple of my constituents whose travel plans have been put in jeopardy. One woman applied for her son’s passport at the beginning of April, believing that she had plenty of time. According to the website, it would take three weeks. Eight weeks later, after numerous interventions, she was finally one of the lucky ones and received the passport. However, that was only after she had paid for the fast-track service and been told to go for an interview in Durham, which is 290 miles away. After we intervened, she did not have to go to Durham. However, by that stage, she had spent £42 on the initial application, £87 on the one-week fast track, £15 on a replacement birth certificate and £95 on a flight to Durham that she did not need. I know that the Home Secretary has offered some concessions, but we need many more and they need to be backdated.

Another family, after an intervention from the office of the Minister for Security and Immigration, received their passport by courier. Finally, after contacting the helplines repeatedly, they got the passport specially delivered from London four hours before they were due to get on the plane at 11 o’clock. Like other hon. Members, I thank the Minister for the effort that he put into that case, but that is hardly the way people should receive a passport.

In the majority of the cases that have been dealt with by my office, people have effectively been forced to pay for the upgrade. The message seems to be, “If you can afford to pay for the upgrade, you can get your passport; if you can’t afford it, that’s tough.” It would be interesting to know how much money the Government have made from upgrades over the past few months.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, the Home Office tried to close the Newport passport office in 2010, which would have meant the loss of 300 jobs. After a strong campaign by the staff, the PCS union and the South Wales Argus, which had the support of local politicians, the office remained open, but lost the postal processing service. It retained the counter service and the customer complaints service. Some 150 people lost their jobs, which was a huge hit to the local economy. I believe that it also caused the biggest hit of any of the cuts at that time to the service across the UK.

The then Minister for Immigration, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), talked repeatedly in our debates about excess staff in the service. Today, the Home Secretary talked about excess office space. However, almost immediately after the redundancies, overtime was offered in other offices around the service. The staff felt that that added insult to injury.

As the unions and hon. Members have pointed out repeatedly to Ministers, after the postal work was taken out of Newport, management had to close customer counters early or for one day a week to deal with the backlog. The Identity and Passport Service filled the gaps with staff from other departments and agency staff. Higher grade staff were working overtime to deal with straightforward applications, which is four grades below their normal work.

In April 2012, we wrote to the Minister to ask why, a month after the staff in Newport were made redundant, the agency announced that recruitment was necessary. That showed a complete disregard for the staff who had lost their jobs.

The Welsh Affairs Committee warned in its report in 2010:

“The Newport Passport Office has a reputation for excellent customer care. The closure of the Newport Passport Application Processing Centre would result in the loss to the service of skilled people with significant experience… The Government must guarantee that the same high level of service will continue to be provided”.

Clearly, that has not happened.

I do not understand why the current delays have come as a surprise to the Home Office. The signs have been there for years, but it has insisted on pursuing the cuts, with little regard for the effect that they are having on customer service and on the staff who do a great job in Newport and at other offices, and who are under immense stress. As the Government try to solve the problem, they should look to restore the 150 jobs that were lost in Newport. We have the space and the experience for that to happen. That is important if customers are to get the experience that is advertised to them, and it is important to our city.

15:09

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

I will try to be brief. Before I say anything else, in case I run out of time, I would like to add my compliments to the staff who are working so hard and to my own office staff, who have put in a great deal of work on the matter and dealt with some very distressed people over the past wee while. The Foreign Office warned nearly six months ago that closing overseas passport offices would lead to passport delays. In January this year, we on the Foreign Affairs Committee were informed of that by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials. We all know now that the Government’s decision to shut down seven overseas offices has been identified as a key reason for the passport delays affecting thousands of our constituents, whatever the Minister says. Control of overseas applications for passports by British expats has been handed over to the Home Office, and that decision has meant that since January, British passport offices have had to deal with an extra 350,000 applications for travel documents.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sandra Osborne]

I will not give way, if my hon. Friend does not mind, so that other people can get in.

Hon. Members may be aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee is currently holding an inquiry into consular services. One of the most fundamental matters that expats expect, quite rightly, of the Government is an efficient and timely passport service. On passport applications, the FCO told the Committee:

“For most overseas customers the timescales for passport applications remain the same: four weeks for renewals and six weeks for first time applicants. In some countries this may take longer owing to the need for additional time required to complete checking procedures.”

Not surprisingly, it takes longer for officials in the UK to check details on applications from Britons overseas.

When former diplomats Sir Michael Arthur, former ambassador to Germany, and Mr Giles Paxman, former British ambassador to Spain and Mexico, gave public evidence to the Committee, I asked them whether the decision to transfer responsibility to the Home Office had been a good one. If people think that it is hard to get a straight answer to a straight question from a politician, they should try getting one from a diplomat. In typical diplomatic language, Sir Michael Arthur said:

“It was unpopular in Germany where it was felt that the distance made it more difficult to get a passport.”

Mr Paxman stated the obvious, saying:

“The need to transport the application back to the UK and then the final transport back out again is bound to add a little bit of time.”

That is an understatement, at best. However tactfully they put it, it was clear that they were acknowledging that the decision to transfer responsibility to the Home Office had led to a deterioration in service.

Does the Minister think that the transfer was a good decision, and why was no account seemingly taken of the totally predictable delays that it would cause? Are applications from people who live in Britain being delayed because of the need to process applications from expats? As late as 9 June, Mr Pugh stated that delays were due to an exceptional early summer demand for passports because of the improving economy and a rise in holiday bookings. That is not the case in Scotland, where it has been in the news this week that people are staying at home this year for their holidays.

The Minister did not even mention the key problem that has been caused by the change in the system. The Prime Minister has accused the Leader of the Opposition of trying to frighten people, but he does not need to do so because they are already terrified. Like so many other Members, I and my office staff have dealt with several tragic cases in the past few weeks, and I would like to highlight one. A constituent wrote to me:

“I am writing in tears and in desperation, both my son and I are waiting for our passports. I have tried for days to get information and find someone who can help us. My son is 18 and is now applying for his first passport, he was previously on my passport so I sent our applications away together on 13 May.”

They are having all sorts of problems getting their passports, and the woman has already put out £400 to get her son insured because he has a very serious illness that could cause sudden death. That is only part of the extra expense that they have incurred. I think we should all be ashamed that in this day and age, this is happening in our country. It brings shame on our country and on the Government.

15:14

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) has said. I praise those who are working extremely hard to try to help people who are suffering as a result of this fiasco, namely the staff in passport offices up and down the country. I particularly want to place on record my respect for Farooq Belai from the MPs hotline, who has been very helpful, even when I have called him from home at the weekend. My constituency staff, James, David, Pat, Emma and Darren, have also worked extremely hard alongside me during the past few weeks to try to help my constituents. I will pick out a couple of cases to highlight the stress under which this problem has placed my constituents and use those cases to illustrate some of the points that the Home Secretary did not address in her opening statement. I hope that the Minister will address them in his closing remarks.

First, however, I want to come back on a couple of points made by Government Members. The whole speech made by the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who is no longer in his place, was based on the assertion that there is a 97% success rate and the situation is getting better. He must have heard a different speech from the one I heard from the Home Secretary, because she was clear that the success rate is 89%, so it is getting worse. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said that he had only had four cases and that he had also worked to try to help his constituents, but I feel he was trying to imply that the Opposition were making a mountain out of a molehill. I have 30 cases at the moment, and even the Prime Minister’s figures show that, on average, there are 46 cases in each constituency, so I have not got as many cases as some hon. Members.

The first case that I would like to highlight is that of Emma Goldie. She applied on 24 April so that she could go on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to New York with Caldervale high school in my constituency, and her family saved up to pay the £1,200 that she needed to go. I have been fighting with the Passport Office for the past few days to get her a passport, because she has not heard anything. I was told last night that the staff would try to get her an interview in Glasgow today. Unfortunately, she got a phone call this morning to say that her passport would not be ready for weeks. I apologise for the fact that I have been doing a lot of texting and emailing while I have been sitting in the Chamber, but we have managed to get her an interview in Glasgow.

That case raises two points. First, I tried to contact the Durham office, which is dealing with our case, through the MPs hotline yesterday, and I was told that it is no longer picking up the phone not only to inquiries from Members of Parliament, but to the MPs hotline itself. I asked for that to be confirmed in writing, by e-mail, and I was told that the gentleman I spoke to was not authorised to do that. However, he sent me his contact details, so I can pass them to the Minister if that is helpful.

Secondly, my constituent was repeatedly put off because her travel date was not until this Friday, 20 June. I understand that the Passport Office is dealing with cases in order of travel date, and I can see the logic in that when we are in such a crisis, but the date of travel is not always the date on which someone needs their passport. If someone has to apply for a visa, for instance—or, if they are travelling to America, an electronic system for travel authorisation visa waiver, which was the case for my constituent—they will need their passport before the date on which they travel. Will the Minister take on board the fact that the date on which the passport is needed is not necessarily the same as the date of travel? Will the Passport Office look at that, ask applicants for the date on which their passport will be needed and change the order of applications to reflect that?

The other case I want to raise is that of a gentleman who missed his first day in a new job abroad this week. He and his family are now terrified that he has lost the job, and I am supporting them and hoping that that is not the case. That happened through no fault of his own, because he applied for the passport a while ago. The same gentleman and his wife have also been saving for three years to take their children to Disneyland later this week, but he still does not have his passport. He has been asked to go to Peterborough for an interview. Why are Scottish people not being given interviews at Glasgow passport office? We are fighting for that, but I have had constituents going to Durham and Peterborough. All Scots should be going to Glasgow.

Finally, I reiterate the points that have been made about compensation. The Minister has said that the success of the economy has led to the influx of passport applications. If those applications are from people who have not been able to afford a holiday until now, I suggest that those people will be the least able to afford the extra costs that they have incurred as a result of this situation, and I ask for them to be compensated fully.

15:19

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), who aptly outlined the serious consequences of some of these cases for people’s lives. I have seen very many similar cases myself. I add my thanks to the many staff with whom my office have been dealing. I thank my own staff, who have been dealing with people in great distress about the consequences of not being able to get passports or travel documents in time, for all sorts of reasons, and in many countries around the world as well as here in the UK.

I particularly thank the Minister’s office for dealing with a couple of the most extreme cases. However, this exemplifies the whole problem. Why am I and other Members having to speak to the Minister’s office late on a Friday evening and put those staff under additional pressure to deal with people who are clearly under a lot of pressure themselves? The fact that we have arrived at that situation exemplifies the problems that have been experienced all over the country. Among many of the constituents to whom I have spoken, there is a real loss of confidence in the Home Office’s ability to deliver one of its most basic functions and one of our most basic rights—that of being able to prove our citizenship and to travel freely around the world as a result.

One case of which the Minister will be aware involved a couple and their child in China who were being threatened not only with fines for not having a passport for their child but, potentially, deportation or even jail if they did not get their passport, causing them great difficulties. When we are supposed to be promoting constituents trading and engaging in commerce all around the world and expanding Britain’s links with countries such as China, it is terrible for them to have to go through that experience and potentially have to leave China, with great consequences for their business there.

One of the other key concerns, sadly, has been about the service that several people have received when they have tried to get in contact with the Passport Office by phone. That is not in any way to denigrate the efforts of the staff, who are under an awful amount of stress and clearly have not been given the resources and backing to be able to do their jobs. Some people have been told that they are going to be called back within 48 hours but that has not happened. Others have called from countries where phone calls back to the UK are very expensive, been put on hold for ages and then told to phone back because the computer systems had broken down or told that they would be phoned back when the computer systems were working, but that has not happened. A constituent told me about a case that arose only yesterday. She says:

“I had a call back from the passport office today who said that despite me being told I was going to be fast tracked…I have delayed this process more by calling them”

to find out how the application is progressing. She continues:

“Every time I ring it logs my call and then they have 2 working days after my call to respond. So I now I should not hear from them until Friday. Surely this can’t be how the process works?”

The sense of absolute exasperation that people are feeling shows the serious problems that we are facing.

There is a lack of clarity from the Home Secretary about several issues, particularly refunds. Another issue is the contradictory or unclear information that we have been receiving. We have heard a lot about the state of the information on the website, and I have experienced that myself. As regards the information that is being provided, or not provided, to our posts overseas—to embassies and high commissions—the system is not working. I mentioned Qatar, but I am aware of other places where officials are clearly not being empowered to be able to support our constituents. It is a shame that we do not have a Foreign Office Minister here. I hope that the Immigration Minister and the Home Secretary will be in regular contact with Foreign Office officials to make sure that these issues are dealt with swiftly. Unfortunately, this situation represents a much wider problem at the Home Office in terms of information that is provided on websites and to constituents. I repeatedly deal with cases of people getting false information about processing times, guidance on visa applications, and all sorts of other things. There needs to be a deep and radical look at what is happening about the information that is provided to the public.

Having heard today’s speeches, I am left in no doubt about the causes of this situation. I fully associate myself with the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) about the cutbacks in the service in Wales, as well as the comments by the Public and Commercial Services Union about the overall cuts to the service. The changes to overseas applications have had a massive impact. There has been a lack of serious oversight and management of the issue at senior levels within the Home Office. That goes to the heart of the matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to outline some of the costs to the system as a whole as a result of this—not only in terms of diversion of staff time, overtime costs, and other costs to the Home Office, but the costs to staff through the additional stress they have been put under. Sadly, I have a list of six or seven cases that we have yet to resolve in addition to the existing caseload of nearly 30. I will share those with the Minister’s office, and I very much hope that he can help in addressing these concerns.

15:24

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

This crisis was not only predictable but predicted. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) in raising these issues for a very long time. As a member of the PCS parliamentary group, I regularly attend its briefing sessions for MPs giving its perspective on the issues facing its members. This issue has been very much on its agenda and it has been briefing MPs about it for a very long time.

This is not just about how the Home Secretary is dealing with the problem or how she has dealt with it over the past few weeks, or indeed the past few months; it is also about how she has helped to create it. The previous Labour Government went to a great deal of trouble to open up passport offices throughout the country.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katy Clark]

I will not, because I understand that a number of Members want to speak and we are going to have the closing speeches shortly. I would not want to take time away from someone who has been waiting here all afternoon to speak.

When the Conservative Government were elected, they introduced a policy of closing passport offices throughout the country. They closed 22 passport offices and one processing centre. There has been outsourcing of work, and it is feared that there will be more. That is very significant in this context, not only because of the numbers of staff who have been lost but because of the reorganisations that have been taking place, which, in themselves, cause a great deal of concern.

The Home Secretary spoke about the additional staff she has been bringing in to do this work over the past few days and weeks, perhaps longer. Those staff have been transferred from other parts of the Home Office, particularly the immigration and visa sections. It would usually take at least six weeks to train up a member of staff to do such work, but the people being transferred are being trained over the weekend, or in a few days, to do jobs that are incredibly important for the security of this country. It is vital that this work is done properly.

The other way in which the Government have been dealing with this issue over the past few months is to allow staff overtime—not only staff who usually do these jobs but those on far higher grades with far higher salaries who do not usually do this kind of work and, frankly, are not best equipped to do it. We have to learn the lessons of similar crises in the past. We must ensure that we have sufficient, properly trained permanent passport staff in place to deal with work that needs to be done at every point in the year.

In the last financial year, the Passport Office made profits of £70 million, so it is not a sector of Government that should be affected by the austerity cuts. The Government have treated it like other Departments by insisting that there should be cuts in staffing, but people pay for this service, and there is an obligation on Government to make sure that they get an efficient service.

My constituents, like others, are travelling all round the country to try to get a passport. Over the past few days, I have heard from constituents who have been going from Ayrshire on the west coast of Scotland to Durham, Liverpool and other parts of the country. Some have been asked to go to Belfast, although I think we have managed to make sure that they have not been required to cross the Irish sea to get their problems sorted out. We need to review the idea that closing the network of passport offices has been a success, and I hope that this debate will take that forward.

A number of constituents have already lost their holidays as a result of what is happening. I would like to raise one case of the many cases that have been raised with me. My constituent, who had lost her passport, went from Ayrshire to the Liverpool passport office on 10 June. She was due to fly out of the country on Monday 16 June but has still not done so. She is hoping that if she could fly out tomorrow or later this week, she could at least have some of her holiday. If I give the Minister the details of that case, will he look into it?

15:29

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

As we have heard, the Government’s own passport advice website clearly states:

“It should take 3 weeks to get the passport”.

It still said that the last time I looked at it, despite the crisis outlined in detail today. One of the first things the Home Secretary could have done was update the website in order not to give people the expectation of a three-week wait. Constituents started contacting me eight weeks ago about the delays and problems they were experiencing in getting passports. As I have said, the Scottish holidays come that bit earlier and the traditional holiday period in Inverclyde means that the majority of people plan to go on a two-week holiday at the very start of July. I have seen this problem coming for some time.

The problems that people come to my office to tell me about focus largely on first-time passports for adults and children and, of course, name changes. Some of my constituents who have needed to update their passports have even been asked to travel to Liverpool. That means travelling some distance, and we can only imagine the expenses they will incur to go there and get a passport.

The delays have caused widespread misery and panic for many of my constituents who want to go on holiday or need a passport for identity purposes, including getting a job. The Home Secretary referred to the courier service, which my constituents have experienced; it has not been delivering during out-of-office hours, including the weekend, so it has been a restricted service. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that that will not continue.

The Passport Office said in its defence that there was no backlog and the Home Secretary backed it up, but a leaked e-mail from its interim chief executive said that there was trouble. Newspapers have reported that requests for passports are up by some 300,000 on the previous year, and the Passport Office has been advising some holidaymakers to pay a fast-track fee up front, to make sure they get their passports in time. As I said, even those of my constituents who have received their passports have been told they must drive to other passport offices to collect them.

During the second week of June, the unions claimed that the backlog in passport applications was surging above 500,000, despite the emergency plans that had been put in place at the time. The unions made it clear that the agency was in crisis due to job cuts and office closures. The Passport Office, however, was not short of money. It recorded a surplus of £72 million in 2012-13, so why has it been cutting staff? While the Home Secretary has been focusing on arguments with her colleagues, she has taken her eye off the ball and let this crisis get out of hand. I welcome the fact that she has apologised today.

As I said, my office has been speaking about constituents with the passport service for many weeks. I thank the passport service for the work it has done and my office staff for the many hours they have put in to make sure that my constituents will be able to go on holiday. My office are still dealing with requests for passports. One of my constituents was due to go on holiday but had waited until the last minute. Last week, he paid the premium and finally got his passport on Friday the 13th. He was due to fly that weekend, so the date was not unlucky for him. My constituency office is still being inundated with cases, so Members can imagine the panic and upset the situation is causing.

The Home Secretary has said that fees for the premium service will be waived. I welcome that, but it is too little, too late for my constituents, because they have had to put their hands in their pockets and stump up the premium payment to get their passport so that they can travel. Many have scrimped and saved all year round to be able to afford a family holiday, which is not easy at a time of a cost of living crisis. They deserve at the very least to be reimbursed.

15:34

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I would love to talk in detail about the 21 families who have contacted my office and discuss the run-around they have been given, the call-backs they never get and their wasted trips to Liverpool and Durham. I would like to talk about the work time I have lost and the difficulties that Mathew, my fantastic caseworker, has had with the parliamentary line. He has waited on the line for 90 minutes; he has not been able to get through at all at other times. It takes 24 hours to get a reply to a complaint and he cannot ring back the person dealing with the case. Furthermore, the tracking line is constantly engaged.

In the short time I have, however, I want to talk about my most dire case. After nearly 12 years of trying for a baby, my constituents Kiran and Bina took the brave decision to use a specialist surrogacy clinic in India. After five attempts, they have been blessed with twins, who were born on 3 March. The babies were very premature and had a very low birth weight of under 3 lbs. The couple got citizenship for their babies within a week and were told they would get their passports within six weeks. Before the cuts, those applications would have been dealt with in Hong Kong, but now their documents have been sent to Liverpool and they have been told that the process will take 16 weeks. They were promised calls back from the Passport Office, but they never materialised. E-mails have not been received and they are desperate. I have contacted the Minister and, although there is some movement, there is still no resolution.

Kiran and Bina tell me that they and their tiny babies are literally prisoners in their hotel room because of the 45 degree heat. They are not staying in the Ritz; it is a cheap hotel with very basic amenities and terrible air conditioning. They are running out of money; Kiran is now on unpaid leave and they are worried about their mortgage and bills at home. He is worried that he may lose his job and, with the onset of the rainy season, they are terrified that their babies will get malaria.

Kiran and Bina are the proud parents of premature twins and are desperate to bring them home to meet the rest of their family and friends, to be close to medical care and to start their dream life as mum and dad. Instead, they have already wasted three precious months of their babies’ lives stuck in a hot, uncomfortable hotel room with peeling wallpaper.

They are just one family out of many. Mr and Mrs Patel’s baby was born in January. Mr Patel is on unpaid leave and they are also running out money; their health is suffering because they cannot afford to eat properly. Their baby has spent six months stuck in a hotel room. What is the cost on his development?

Of course, it is not just new parents and babies who are suffering. The daughter of the Patels’ surrogate cannot start school because her papers are with the Passport Office. Why cannot there be an expedited system for passports for surrogate children, as is the case with citizenship? The Home Secretary said earlier that these situations are complex, so why is there not a specialist team dealing with these cases?

This is not just about the awful conditions these families are in. They have to apply for parental orders in the UK within six months of the birth of their children. Their visas are running out and they have been told that emergency travel documents are not the answer, because they would have to withdraw their applications for passports and retrieve their documentation before they could get them. In addition, an exit visa is required for all newborns to be able to leave India, but it cannot be obtained without a passport. The Indian high commission continues to say that, as first-time applicants, these babies cannot travel on emergency documentation.

I am pleading with the Home Secretary to help these families and directly intervene: please help Kiran and Bina and the other families to bring their babies home.

15:38

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I echo the concerns raised by many hon. and right hon. Members about the problems that delays in issuing passports are causing constituents. The situation is distressing for many of them. I have witnessed that with regard to not only my own constituents, but the many people from across the country who have had to travel to Durham to sort out issues with the Passport Office and have ended up in my constituency office. Overseas citizens have also made representations to my office. I say to the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that if he thinks that Opposition Members are in some way concocting the problem, he should try being a member of staff at my constituency office.

I want to focus on the impact the debacle is having on Passport Office staff. It has an office in my constituency and I know how hard the staff have been working in recent weeks and months to try to alleviate the crisis. We need to thank them, because if so many of them had not gone the extra mile, the situation would be worse than the one we are facing today.

Let us be clear: responsibility for this dreadful situation rests with the Home Secretary—I am glad she is back in her place—and her Government. The Government have inadequately resourced the Passport Office, despite the fact that it is paid for by users of the service. We heard from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, who gave an excellent speech, that the Home Secretary will blame anyone but her Government for this shambles. I want the Home Secretary to take responsibility for this issue and answer some of my questions so that I can better understand why my constituents who need to use or work in the Passport Office, are currently experiencing such a stressful situation.

When and why was the decision taken to transfer responsibility for issuing passports to citizens living overseas to the UK, without any proper assessment of the additional strain that that would put on the system here? I have heard that in Durham alone that means processing a few hundred thousand extra passports. If those on the Government Front Bench dispute those figures, they need to give me the accurate figures as I have not been able to obtain them from the Department. When did the Home Office realise that there was a problem in trying to process applications from citizens living overseas, and when did it move experienced staff from other areas to that section, thereby growing the backlog in other areas?

What is the situation regarding the reduction in staff numbers? The Public and Commercial Services Union has stated that 600 fewer staff are now working in the Passport Office than in 2010, and today we heard that that was because of the withdrawal of identity cards. I understand that most identity card work was carried out in the Durham office, and in 2010 the Home Office told me that that meant a reduction of 68 staff, not 600. We need clarity on that.

Why has there been a delay in paying overtime to staff? Those staff earn between £7 and £9 per hour for processing work and checking passport applications. Apparently, they have to process about 17 passports every hour, yet only in June were they given double time for working additional hours—a very laggardly response from the Government. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that overall staffing levels and levels of remuneration are correct, given the sensitive nature of the job? Staff are now dealing with very frustrated and often distressed and angry people. What training have they been given to enable them to work in that situation? Sometimes people manning the call centre have more than 100 calls waiting. I hope the Home Secretary will tell the House what she will do to compensate staff who are dealing with that dreadful situation. They have not done anything to create this situation, but they are doing their utmost to help sort it out.

15:43

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I will speak as briefly as I can at the end of this long but important debate. Although a lot of statistics have been presented, each case is personal. As we heard during the debate, for anyone who needs to travel, waiting for a passport can be highly distressing.

I checked with my caseworkers how many people have got in touch with us, and the state of those applications. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), we had four cases that have been processed, including one where a new passport was sent to Nepal and arrived in time for the person to travel. One of my constituents was in China—there has been some debate about people in other countries getting documents. He was not able to receive his passport in time, but he has successfully contacted the British embassy in Beijing and has emergency travel documentation to allow him to make his journey.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Collins]

I am afraid I have very little time, but if I finish early I will come back to the hon. Lady.

I had one case where, unfortunately, someone was not able to get their passport in time. That was not a straightforward case, as the Home Secretary set out—it was a first- time passport for a child, and travel plans had been made in a hurry because of a family situation, so the trip had not been planned for long. I am sorry that my constituent was not able to get the support they needed, but in my constituency that has been the only such case so far.

There has clearly been enormous demand for passports. The Home Secretary spoke about a 12-year high in the number of applications, and any organisation would find its resources strained by such a large increase in demand. A 10% increase in passport applications on the previous year will clearly put strain on the system. Quite properly, the debate is about whether the Passport Office should have anticipated that extra level of demand and put resources in place to cope with it. I am interested in the Passport Office’s recruitment levels, and whether such planning took place.

We said there was a 10% increase in applications, and the shadow Home Secretary asked—quite properly—whether that surge was due to applications from overseas, and what proportion of that 10% were overseas applications. The Home Secretary said that overseas applications made up less than half of applications, and we are waiting for further information on that. It may not be as straightforward as it seems, however, because some people previously living abroad may have applied for a passport in the UK, rather than through an overseas office, and the data may not be quite as straightforward.

Let us say for argument’s sake that around half of the increase in passport applications has come from overseas. I note that Passport Office staffing levels have risen by about 10% over the past two years, and are about 6% up on last year. If there was an increase in staff of about 6% from 2013-14, and if an uplift in overseas applications of about 5% was anticipated, it seems that reasonable preparation in terms of staffing levels was made. Therefore, the pressure has come not from the change in how passports are issued from the UK instead of from overseas, but because of an unanticipated level of normal applications. The 6% increase in staffing levels year on year in the Passport Office shows that preparations were made and put in place for anticipated extra demand, but that demand went far beyond what could have been reasonably expected.

I was pleased when the Home Secretary said that the permanent secretary is conducting a review into the workings of the Passport Office to see what lessons can be learned. There is clearly an issue this year that the Home Secretary and her team are working hard to address, and we do not want to be in this position in the future.

What drivers of passport applications should be fed into the system? Should we give more consideration to the impact of an economic uplift, which may lead to more travel? Should we look at birth rates, or at renewal rates so that we can more easily anticipate when extra passports are likely to be applied for and ensure that that is factored in? As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) said, users are paying for this system; passports are not issued for free and people pay for them. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect the Passport Office to put in place the resources it needs to anticipate demand. Could we be cleverer at working out ways to anticipate demand?

As I said earlier, looking at the year-on-year figures and at the increase in recruitment to the Passport Office in the past year, it would certainly have coped with extra demand placed on it from overseas applications. We must ensure that we are ready for next year if there is a further surge in passport applications, particularly if that is driven by the economic confidence coming from the growing economy.

15:48

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We have had a very useful debate today. I echo many right hon. and hon. Members across the House in thanking the hard-pressed Passport Office staff, the people working on the helpline and, dare I say, the Minister’s office for the efforts that they are making for constituents who have received their passports following the interventions of Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash)—and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), who has a passport office in her constituency—have made that point. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) also made that point, although I cannot compete with him in making my own passport as he said he did in a former career. He would probably need a passport to go back to Liverpool now, given his current political affiliations.

I have no quibble with the hard work, dedication or efforts of passport staff, especially on last-minute cases, to ensure that people have their holidays. But I must echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) when he said that constituents should not have to involve Members of Parliament to get their passports on time. People are paying for the service, which made a £73 million surplus last year. The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who is no longer in his place, was in denial about the impact of the problems on constituents across the country.

Clearly, despite the efforts of the staff, there is something wrong with the delivery of passport services at the moment. The motion makes three points. First, it expresses the frustration of Members of Parliament about the experiences of their constituents who have applied for passports, including lengthy delays and the consequential cancellation of holidays, business trips and visits. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) made great play of his concerns about the number of individuals he has had to deal with.

Secondly, the motion points out how the Government have failed to plan properly to meet the level of demand this year. Thirdly, and crucially, it calls on the Government to expand their emergency measures and to look at compensating passport applicants who have had to pay for urgent upgrades. I shall consider each issue in turn to scrutinise the Government’s record.

[Keith Vaz]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I was just about to mention my right hon. Friend, so I shall give way to him.

[Keith Vaz]

We have yet another Sedwill review, and the last one resulted in the abolition of the UK Border Agency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should review the decision taken by Ministers to stop applications being made abroad? It is time to look again at that decision and allow people to make applications by post.

[Mr Hanson]

I know that my right hon. Friend’s Committee looked at these issues yesterday. I understand the reasons behind that decision—Ministers are concerned about consistency and security—but we need to review whether those are concerns in all cases. We also need to review the procedures that have been used to repatriate the process, because they have not worked, in my view. There were discussions yesterday and today about the issue, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said, the passport website still has a three-week web promise for passport delivery. I would like to know from the Minister whether that is still the norm for delivery of passports. Will the Minister commit today to maintaining the three-week delivery time? The Passport Office chief executive has said that we had a 16% under-forecast of demand. We initially thought that the extra demand was 350,000 applications, but the chief executive confirmed yesterday—in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—that it is 400,000. The Passport Office has now ordered an independent review of forecasting. Yesterday, the chief executive said that 493,289 passport applications were “in progress”. The Home Office does not use the words “delay” or “backlog”: everything is “work in progress”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) tested the Home Secretary on the figures before the House today. The Home Secretary said that applications this year are 3.3 million, up from 2.95 million last year—an increase of 350,000. She also said that 6% of the 3.3 million applications were from overseas, and that is 200,000 applications. Last year, those 200,000 applications were dealt with by the Foreign Office, so—as my right hon. Friend said—200,000 of the 350,000 increase came from overseas. I hope that the Minister will tell us what has caused the increase in demand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) asked that question. Is it because of the repatriation of dealing with overseas residents’ passports—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) asked pertinent questions at the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing—or is it because of the closure of offices at home, a point raised my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn), for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark)? Is it because, even today, there are not sufficient staff to deal with current needs, or is it because, in some twilight world—as the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said—the bright economic future has led people to book their holidays early? Only yesterday, the annual figures showed that inflation outstripped wages yet again. People’s earnings are not keeping pace with inflation.

[Mr Robinson]

I agree with every word my right hon. Friend says. We have had no explanation from the Government on what has caused this crisis. It can only be incompetence at the top, lack of ministerial direction and attention, and the organisation of the HMPO, which the Select Committee earlier this week exposed as being very inadequate.

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s apology, but an apology is not enough. We need a clear exposition on what has caused this problem. A range of points have been put forward today, but we have had no clarity from the Government.

The human cost of this crisis was exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). May I just note in passing that he celebrates 44 years in the House today? The human cost was also mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Airdrie and Shotts and for Cardiff South and Penarth. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) looked at problems relating particularly to India, and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) accepted that there are challenges in the system.

I put the problem down to a failure to plan. The HMPO annual report last year stated that there would be approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually, so why did the Minister not act? We knew the Foreign Office changes were being introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that overtime has increased. We heard about the January rise. We heard that on 23 May extra staff were deployed. In an Adjournment debate secured in June by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, the Minister said:

“HMPO will have deployed 250 additional passport examination staff”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 524.]

by the end of June. If this was a problem in January, why is that the case? The issues of training and recruitment could all have been anticipated by the Government. What has been the impact of moving fraud staff and others on to passports? Confidence in the measures announced by the Home Secretary has not been clear from Members here today.

In the one minute I have left I will turn to compensation. Will the Minister tell me, either today or at a future date, how many extra payments have been made by people to ensure they receive their passports on time? Why is the offer applicable only from Thursday to a limited section of people? Will the Minister commit himself to looking at the number of people who have been hit by the extra charge for fast-tracking and say whether he will repay them? Will he look at the issue of the date, rather than the date of travel, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts?

It is clear that the problem was known. It is clear that inadequate action was taken. It is clear that there is still a problem now. It is clear that Ministers were not on top of the job and not on top of their work. It is clear that they failed the public who pay for this service. The Minister probably needs to take a holiday. Will he take it after he has sorted out everybody else’s passport? Will he ensure that the Home Office does what our constituents are paying it to do: to deliver a quality service on time and on budget to ensure that people are able to take their business trips and enjoy their hard-earned holidays?

15:58

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

May I say at the outset that I understand entirely why so many right hon. and hon. Members across the House have sought to bring to Ministers’ attention a number of individual cases? That is precisely what Members of Parliament are for—to represent their constituents. I understand why they have sought to use this debate to do that. This debate has underlined the work of the Passport Office in seeking to respond to and address the concerns that have been flagged. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I pay tribute to the hard work, dedication and professionalism of HMPO staff who are working to process applications and respond to individual customer and MP inquiries. We recognise the need to service MPs’ individual requests. That is why, from the start of this week, the MP team was strengthened to ensure that a service is provided to deal with those individual cases.

I note the number of individual cases and circumstances that have been flagged. Sadly, in the time available, I will not be able to respond to each of them, but a careful note is being taken of a number of them. A note is also being taken of some of the points that have been made, for example on the courier services. I have heard that DX is working late evenings, but we will look at each case. We will also look at each point that has been flagged on individual countries.

I underline our commitment to focus on those individual circumstances that have been flagged, but I also underline the Home Secretary’s message. We apologise to anyone who has been affected by their passport not being delivered when expected through no fault of their own. I understand the concerns that have been flagged and the individual cases that have been raised. I understand the concerns of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and his desire to raise individual cases, but I say to him in careful terms that the tone and nature of his contribution did not fit the debate.

I should like to underline some of the individual actions we have taken to address the current high volume of passport applications. Her Majesty’s Passport Office issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of the year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.[Official Report, 7 July 2014, Vol. 584, c. 2MC.] We have had an additional 350,000 applications compared with last year, and the highest demand for passports in 12 years.

I stress to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that our actions have not just happened in recent weeks. Since January, HMPO has put in place measures to deal with the increase, and the vast majority of customers have received their passports on time and straightforward renewals of passports within the three-week period. I stress to him that the website advises:

“It should take 3 weeks to get the passport - use a different service if you need the passport urgently…It can take longer if more information is needed or your application hasn’t been filled out correctly.”

[Mr Robinson]

The Minister is correct that applications are roughly 10% up on last year—this is in my letter to him, as he will see when he gets round to replying—and that manpower was increased from January to May by 10%. Is not the point that, if we had all that planning, why has the crisis arisen? Is it not because of the decision to incorporate into that planning system the different volume of requirements for overseas applications?

[James Brokenshire]

We have had sustained demand and the demand has come earlier in the year than would normally be the case. Therefore, that increase and the period in which demand was sustained is an important factor. That is why HMPO has been operating seven days a week since March and why passports are delivered within 24 hours by couriers.

Some 250 staff were moved from back-office roles to the front line, and an additional 200 people will soon be supporting front-line operation. The focus has been given to getting passport applications turned round. I also stress that 650 extra staff are working on the customer helpline—an increase to 1,000. We understand people’s anxieties and action has been taken.

As the Home Secretary has said, we are ensuring that those who need to travel in the next seven days whose applications have been outstanding for more than three weeks through no—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but Members who have come into the Chamber who have not been here for the debate should not be talking through his speech.

[James Brokenshire]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To confirm, we have taken action on those needing to travel within the next seven days whose applications have been outstanding for more than three weeks through no fault of their own. They will have their applications fast-tracked without charge.

We have introduced processes overseas for those wishing to renew their passports to travel to the UK. Customers can apply for an extension to their existing passports at consular offices overseas. Overseas posts have been provided with stamps and customers are booking appointments for this service. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now issuing emergency travel documents for children who need to travel to the UK.

Staff at HMPO are working hard to process passport applications. Again, I underline the Home Secretary’s thanks to them for their dedication at this time. To give a sense of the scale and nature of the work being undertaken, let me give some numbers to put the issue into context. Almost 160,000 passports were issued in the past week

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

rose—

[Keith Vaz]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I give way to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I appreciate that he was not the Immigration Minister when the decision to close the overseas posts were made, nor was he the Minister earlier this year. However, when was he told personally by Mr Pugh that there would be a problem with the number of applications and does he still have confidence in the chief executive of the agency?

[James Brokenshire]

The Chair of the Select Committee took evidence yesterday from Paul Pugh, who was right to say that his focus is on dealing with the issues at hand—the increases in demand and some of the points that have been flagged up to the House this afternoon. Obviously Ministers receive regular updates from HMPO, which indicated that additional measures were being put in place to deal with demand.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, HMPO’s performance figures up to May show that 97% of straightforward applications were dealt with within three weeks and 99% within four weeks. When it comes to claims of a backlog, it is important to note that there are approximately 480,000 active applications currently being processed. It is not unusual during peak periods for HMPO to operate with high numbers of applications in the system at any one time, with this year seeing the highest level for 12 years—as I have indicated, some of the inflow and outflow gives a sense of that. HMPO is a fast-moving, demand-led business. It receives up to 150,000 domestic applications and around 9,000 overseas applications in any given week. Those applications are necessarily at different stages of the examination process, on what we might describe as a production line, and they have to be scrutinised carefully, for the reasons that have been underlined—security and to ensure that the gold standard of the British passport is maintained.

Hon. Members raised the issue of the Newport passport office, which continues to operate as a customer service centre, offering face-to-face passport applications for premium and fast-track customers, with 150 full-time equivalent posts.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I am conscious of time.

In Scotland, extra resources have been put in place to focus on ensuring that people receive their passports in good time, recognising the earlier school holidays. To address the point made earlier, we are also in close contact with the Glasgow office on the availability of individual appointments. On the staffing point, I again underline what the Home Secretary said—and, indeed, the point my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) made—about the increase in numbers since 2012. We now have 3,444 full-time equivalent staff.

However, we recognise how important passports are, as well as securing people’s renewals in as short a time as possible. Passports are not just dry official documents; they are the key to eagerly anticipated holidays and facilitating international business travel. We recognise the need to review what has happened, which is why it is right that the Home Secretary has commissioned the reviews that she has. On the overseas transfer, that change was made to ensure greater scrutiny and security, ensuring that the gold standard of the British passport is maintained and securing greater continuity of service between all the different parts of the service.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I know that Members have flagged up individual cases involving passports from overseas. These applications take longer and require additional scrutiny. That is why we have to be careful to ensure that those principles are maintained.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I believe I have only a few seconds left.

I would like to underline that we are committed to resolving this issue. We are monitoring it extremely carefully, with a focus on ensuring that performance at HMPO improves, that passport applications are processed efficiently and effectively and that urgent and compassionate cases are prioritised. I recognise the importance—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not know what understandings there might be—I feel sure that they would have to be respected by the parties as a matter of integrity—but procedurally, there is no question of the Minister having only a few seconds left. He has relatively unlimited time if he wishes to avail himself of it. I call the Minister.

[Pamela Nash]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I give way briefly.

[Pamela Nash]

I sensed that the Minister was about to conclude his remarks, but two specific points from my speech have not been addressed. First, I asked about the circumstances when the date by which a passport is needed is not necessarily the date of travel—where there is a visa or electronic system for travel authorisation, for example—so will he advise the Passport Office to make it a priority to deal with that? Secondly, he mentioned interviews at Glasgow, but can he guarantee that Scottish people will be able to get such an interview at Glasgow where it is more suitable for them rather than having to travel elsewhere?

[James Brokenshire]

On the latter point, the Home Secretary has spoken to the head of operations at the Glasgow office. We are carefully monitoring the availability of appointments at the counter in all our offices, and we are specifically focused on Glasgow, given the understandable desire for people to get passports for their holidays. As for individual foreign cases, we have set out the guidance on the seven-day period for providing information on airline bookings and other details. I recognise the importance to each individual and each family of receiving their passports. That is why our focus remains on delivering a high-quality passport service for the benefit of the public. That is what this Government are committed to do and that is what we are focused on delivering.

Question put,

16:11

Division 10

Ayes: 235

---

Labour: 217
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Scottish National Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 282

---

Conservative: 241
Liberal Democrat: 40

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Select Committee on Health. A total of 433 votes were cast, with two spoilt ballot papers. The counting went to four stages and 421 valid votes were cast in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 211 votes. Dr Sarah Wollaston was elected Chair with 226 votes. The other candidate in that round was Dr Phillip Lee, who received 195 votes. Dr Wollaston will take up the post immediately. I warmly congratulate her on her election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet for public viewing.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) for his exemplary leadership of the Health Committee for more than four years. That leadership has been widely respected. I thank him for everything that he has done on behalf of patients, acting, as he has done, as their voice. The NHS touches people’s lives a million times every 36 hours. It is the most extraordinary achievement and also the most extraordinary challenge. The new chief executive of NHS England has called on everyone in the NHS to think like a patient and act like a taxpayer. The role of the Select Committee is to ask those challenging questions on behalf of patients and taxpayers so that this most cherished institution can continue to be there for all of our constituents when they need it the most.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her words.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on her success in the election. I know that she has the knowledge and, above all and perhaps more importantly, the wisdom to be a very good Chair of the Health Committee and I wish her all the very best.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious words.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you know that parliamentary procedure says that we should not be allowed to applaud in this Chamber, but might not this be the kind of occasion when the Speaker abolished the rule and allowed applause?

[Mr Speaker]

There is an old adage that was taught to me by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) some 30 years ago that if one is intent upon a particular course of action, one should never give a bureaucrat a chance to say no. I think that I will leave it there for today.

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to European Union document No. 15808/13, a Commission Report: Alert Mechanism Report 2014, and other documents referred on 11 and 18 December 2013 and 9 April and 11 June 2014. The Ayes were 269 and the Noes were 217, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Energy Prices

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

16:28

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

May I be one of the first to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on winning her election today to become Chair of the Health Committee?

I beg to move,

That this House notes the policy of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition to freeze energy prices for 20 months while the energy market is reformed; further notes that in recent months wholesale gas and electricity prices have fallen significantly, with gas prices for next day delivery 38% lower than their level this time last year and electricity prices 23% lower; believes that in a properly competitive market wholesale cost reductions should be passed on as quickly and as fully as cost increases; and calls on the Government to provide the energy regulator for Great Britain with powers to force energy suppliers to pass on price cuts to consumers in all parts of Great Britain when wholesale costs fall, if suppliers fail to act.

Last week we learned that wholesale energy prices have fallen significantly since the start of the year, and yet there has been no reduction in consumers’ energy bills. Indeed, bills are more than £60 higher this year than they were last year. So today we put before the House a very simple motion. It notes this sustained and substantial fall in wholesale prices in recent months, and it calls for decisive action from Government.

Other proposals could have been included, to which the Opposition remain committed, including a price freeze for 20 months while the energy market is reformed, which the motion notes and the Opposition reaffirm, which, just to be clear, would stop energy companies increasing their prices, but would not stop them cutting them; put a ring fence between the generation and retail arms of vertically integrated energy companies; create a pool for all electricity to be traded in; and provide greater transparency for trades in the gas market. But we have debated and voted on those many times before in the House without agreement. So in the interests of securing consensus today, the motion proposes only one measure, on which we hope it will be possible to find agreement: new powers for the regulator to be able to force suppliers to cut their prices when wholesale costs fall if they do not do it first.

We believe that we need to establish a new regulator with a clearer mandate to protect consumers, because in this respect alone, we believe Ofgem has failed. But again, given there is not consensus on this point, the motion simply proposes that the regulator—whether the current regulator, or a new one, as we have proposed—be invested with tough new powers to ensure that consumers see the benefit of falling wholesale energy prices. This is a motion that the whole House should be able to support, and I want to set out why.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Is not this just the kind of issue on which politicians can reconnect with the public? One fact that emerged from the recent elections is that people feel that politicians are powerless. When energy companies flout public opinion, they feel that we have very little to say from this House. Should we not be supporting the motion because it is a real opportunity for politicians to reconnect with the public? The public are not stupid. They see prices rise—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not making a speech. An intervention has to be short.

[Caroline Flint]

This is a chance for us to come together and pass the motion so that we can tell the public that we understand that regulation does not protect them when wholesale prices fall and those cuts are not passed on to them.

Let me start by explaining exactly what has happened to wholesale prices. Energy suppliers source their energy in a variety of different ways over a period of time. For the big six, some will be bought from their own generation arms, some will be bought in bilateral deals with other generators, and some will be bought via an open exchange. This process of buying and selling, and re-buying and re-selling, will begin some years before the energy is required for delivery. Not all of those trades are made public. It is precisely that lack of transparency that lends weight to the suspicion that energy companies can always find some kind of wholesale price movement to justify whatever prices they want to charge.

On the data that we do have, however, and to which the regulator has access, the picture is clear: wholesale prices are down, and not just slightly down, but substantially down, month after month. Forward prices are 16% lower for gas this year compared with last year, and 9% lower for electricity. Spot prices are 38% lower for gas compared with last year, and at their lowest level since September 2010, and electricity prices are 23% lower and at their lowest level since April 2010. But so far, the only people to benefit are the energy companies.

One of the things that happened when Labour was in government was that Ofgem began requiring companies to report publicly on their profits. Two weeks ago, in its most recent supply market indicators, Ofgem found that the profit margins on selling gas have now hit 10%, double the 5% margin the companies were making this time last year. The profits on a dual fuel bill have more than doubled during the last year, too. But consumers have not seen any benefit, and if the energy companies fail to cut their prices for the rest of this year, a typical household could miss out on savings of more than £130. The same is true of businesses, which have even fewer protections than households, a problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and I are determined to correct.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that a principal problem is that those on prepayment meters are twice as likely to be in fuel poverty? Therefore, does she welcome the moves by EDF to introduce a fixed-rate tariff for prepayment meter customers? Does that not rather indicate that the market and these companies are beginning to listen and to take the actions necessary?

[Caroline Flint]

No. We can simplify the tariffs, and we recognise and welcome that. We can look at the problems of people on prepayment meters, but if the price that has been struck as part of the overall bill is not a fair one and does not reflect the fact that costs are going down for the companies, no simplification of tariffs and no efforts to help people on prepayment meters are a good deal. We must get ahead of this. We must get to grips with how the wholesale prices are set and what we are going to do when the companies do not pass on cost reductions. That is the essence of our motion today.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Caroline Flint]

I will give way one more time, then I want to make progress. I realise that we are short of time because the earlier debate went on considerably longer than expected.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Was she as shocked as I was to see in the annual fuel poverty statistics report projections of households in fuel poverty increasing to 2.33 million? That is equivalent to the population of west Yorkshire living in fuel poverty. Is that not a damning indictment of a market that just does not work?

[Caroline Flint]

It is regrettable and worrying that, as I understand it, the number of families in fuel poverty is higher now than 10 years ago. All families deserve a good deal, whether they are in fuel poverty or not, but of course we need to give full attention to those who are most vulnerable.

As is to be expected, the companies have come up with all kinds of excuses, and I shall deal with each of them in turn. The first excuse is that even if wholesale costs have fallen, other costs have increased. Given that wholesale costs are by far the biggest single component of a household’s energy bill, making up about half of it, we would need evidence of quite dramatic increases in other costs for this claim to hold true. What might those other costs be? Energy bills are made up of five components: wholesale costs, network charges, environmental and social policies, and the supplier’s operating costs and profits. If we leave aside the operating costs and profits, which are within the company’s control, that leaves only two possibilities—network charges and policy costs, both of which, helpfully, are regulated by Ofgem or mandated by Government, meaning that we can test the companies’ claims.

According to Ofgem, network costs are up slightly, by about £7 on the average bill compared with last year, and are forecast to remain flat this year. So that cannot explain the gulf between wholesale costs and retail prices. What about environmental and social policies—the levies that pay for investment in clean energy, insulation and support for the most vulnerable? Given the cuts to schemes such as ECO, the energy company obligation, the fact that the warm home discount is now funded by the taxpayer and the cuts to the forecast increase in the carbon floor price, the claim does not ring true.

Undoubtedly, there are cost pressures, particularly from the small-scale feed-in tariff, but I hope the Secretary of State, who, after all, sets and monitors these costs, will agree that in no way can they account for the scale of the gap we are now seeing between the prices that companies pay for energy and what they charge their customers.

The second excuse we have heard is that the companies’ hedging strategies prevent them from passing on the reductions. What are these hedging strategies? One would be forgiven for thinking that they are a convenient device that enables the companies to complicate matters and confuse people whenever they are challenged about their prices. In fact, they are simply companies’ trading strategies, which determine how far out and in what quantity they begin to buy the energy they need for any given day. So what the energy companies are saying, in effect, is, “Sorry, we bought our energy on another day when it happened to be more expensive”—which, by the way, just happens to make their generation businesses more money, but let us not get into that for now.

It is impossible for anyone to verify the companies’ claims because they never disclose their hedging strategies, but I invite the House to be sceptical. In a properly functioning competitive market, we would expect that, given that wholesale costs are the largest single component of bills, there would be some motivation for companies to try to out-compete their competitors on that price. Adopting a different hedge might allow them to do that. Just to say that companies have different hedging strategies does not address the substantive question of whether they are adopting trading strategies that impose higher than necessary costs on consumers.

An even less persuasive version of that argument has been suggested. Some so-called analysts have suggested that the reason the companies have failed to pass on the cost reductions is the prospect of an energy price freeze. Although I welcome their confidence in a Labour victory at the next general election, I must say that of all the excuses I have heard in my time in this job, that has to be the most ludicrous. The idea that the day after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made his speech on 24 September last year all the energy companies went out and bought up all their energy for the next four years does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Let me be clear: if there is any evidence of suppliers colluding to inflate their margins, which I am sure the Competition and Markets Authority will monitor with great interest, and if this Government refuse to take action, we will. Of course, if we had greater transparency in the way energy is bought and sold in the first place, as Labour has proposed through our electricity pool and ring fence, the issue would be a lot clearer for everyone.

The final excuse we have heard is that nothing untoward could possibly be happening because the energy market is so competitive. Switching is up, we are told, and competition has never been more vigorous, but the facts speak for themselves: wholesale costs have fallen substantially, and over a sustained period; and not only has none of the major suppliers cut its prices, but none has even indicated that it has any intention of doing so. Indeed, some suppliers have actually ruled out price cuts this year. In its interim management statement, published last month, Centrica reported:

“No change expected in residential energy prices this year”.

However, as today’s motion notes, if competition was working effectively, we would expect wholesale cost reductions to be passed on as quickly and fully as wholesale cost increases, but we never see that. A report published by Ofgem in 2011 stated:

“We have found some evidence that customer energy bills respond more rapidly to rising supplier costs compared with falling costs.”

In its “State of the Market Assessment” this year, which led it to make a referral to the CMA, Ofgem again found that:

“There appears to be an asymmetry in how suppliers respond to changes in costs. We found that suppliers pass on cost increases more fully and more quickly than cost decreases.”

Furthermore, it observed that:

“The asymmetry we found was greater than when Ofgem performed a similar exercise in 2011.”

It is not just wholesale costs. It must be a bitter disappointment to the Secretary of State that four of the big six have still not passed on the full £50 saving to 3.7 million customers following the deal he struck with them on green levies in December.

This is not some passing trend that will correct itself in the fullness of time; it is a systemic problem in our energy market that is a result of deep-seated and fundamental flaws in its structure and regulation. Waiting for the CMA to report is not an option. Wholesale prices have been falling for the past six months, with no signs that consumers will benefit, and the CMA investigation, which has not even begun, will take a further 18 months to complete.

That being the case, the question raised is this: what should we do about it? In theory, there are two things that can protect consumers: competition, where companies compete on pricing and customer service to win and retain customers; and regulation, where consumers enjoy certain defined protections. But in the energy market competition is at best immature and regulation, at least on pricing, is non-existent.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Caroline Flint]

I will give way one last time.

[Mr Sheerman]

My right hon. Friend is very kind. Is there not another dimension to this? In the country, including my constituency, the consumer base is getting angrier and better organised, through social media and other ways. They will not put up with this for much longer.

[Caroline Flint]

Absolutely. People were told that technology—doing things online, for example—would always make things better, but that is not the case. The point applies to those who do not have the confidence to challenge and those with busy lives who just do not have the time. I seem to recall a previous Energy Minister admitting that he spent at least half a day trying to sort out his own energy bill. If he cannot do it, what hope is there for others?

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Flint]

No, I will not.

Let me get back to the issue of competitive pressures. As I said, competition in the energy market is at best immature and regulation on pricing is non-existent, which means that the normal competitive pressures that we would expect to restrain companies from increasing prices, or to encourage them to pass on falling costs, are weak, while regulation is unable to correct the situation. That is precisely the Catch-22 situation in which the Government have left consumers. The Government tell them that regulation is not needed because we have a competitive market, when all the evidence from the regulator, consumer groups and parts of the sector clearly shows that competition is not working as it should. We should not forget what consumers are saying. Research out from Which? today shows that complaints to the big six have hit a new record high, because the market is just not working for the public.

Today’s motion proposes a new back-stop power for the regulator to force companies to cut their prices when wholesale costs fall if companies do not do it first. I want to be clear about the nature and extent of the power. It is not a return to full-scale price regulation as existed in this country until 2002, including under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, or as it still exists in most member states of the European Union; it is a back-stop measure that empowers the regulator—not the Government, Ministers or anyone else—to ensure that all consumers can enjoy the full benefits of competition to which they are entitled.

If competition works and cost reductions are passed on, the power may never need to be used. Indeed, its very introduction may act as an incentive on companies to do the right thing. However, if in its view anti-competitive practices happen in our energy market that cause harm to consumers, the regulator should have the power not just to write to the companies to ask them politely to explain to their customers why they are being ripped off, but to do something about it.

That is what today’s motion proposes, and it is something that Members from both sides of the House can support. After all, what did the Prime Minister say before the last election? On 8 September 2009, on his Cameron Direct roadshow in Bedford, he said:

“I think we all feel that when the gas prices or the oil prices go up, they rush to pass the costs onto us and yet when we read in the papers that the oil price has collapsed and the gas prices are coming down, we wait for a very long time before we see anything coming through on our bills, and I think the first thing you’ve got to do...is give the regulator the teeth to order that those reductions are made and that is what we would do.”

I agree. Let me be direct: it is just a shame that, four years into this Parliament, that commitment has gone unfulfilled.

I tell the House today that if we are elected, alongside our price freeze and our market reforms, we will give the regulator that power. However, it would be far better for the Government to take action now rather than consumers having to wait another 11 months to see the benefit of falling wholesale prices. If the Government do, I guarantee them our support. Given the Queen’s Speech, if there is the will, time could be found. In that spirit, I commend this motion to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State, let me say that it will be obvious to the House that a great many hon. Members want to take part in the debate and that the time available is very limited. I must therefore impose a time limit—initially of seven minutes—on Back Benchers.

16:48

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

I join the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) in congratulating the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on her election as Chair of the Health Committee.

The right hon. Member for Don Valley began by wanting to reach consensus and, to be fair, it is not the first time that she has done so. Right hon. and hon. Members might be surprised to learn that she talked warmly in a speech last week about the consensus on energy policy in the UK. They might be even more surprised to learn that I agree that there is consensus on some aspects of energy and climate change policy. The Labour party has accepted the coalition’s major reforms of Britain’s electricity market. Labour voted for the Energy Act 2013 and backed its centrepiece—contracts for difference—which will be crucial in creating the world’s first ever low-carbon electricity market. Labour appeared to be backing our measures that are driving the massive increase in energy investment from which the UK is benefiting, including the more than doubling of renewable electricity. Labour seemed to be backing the measures that we are introducing to keep Britain’s lights on, such as the plans for a capacity market and National Grid’s supplemental balancing reserve.

I am fairly confident that there has been a consensus on energy security and climate change for some time, because the right hon. Member for Don Valley never questions me about our climate change or energy security policies. I am grateful for her support, however tacit. It would be nice to have more opportunities to explain by how much renewable investment has risen in the UK. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the UK had the highest level in Europe in 2013. It would be nice to have a chance to tell the House in detail how we have turned around the legacy of under-investment that we inherited, which was threatening Britain’s energy security.

To be clear, I am more than happy, instead, to be debating energy prices again. I will deal with the right hon. Lady’s core argument head-on, because energy prices are of concern to people and businesses. Even on energy prices, there is some agreement between us. We agree that Britain’s energy markets need to be reformed. If we are to get a better deal for people, whether in terms of prices or customer service, there needs to be change. There needs to be some form of intervention to improve the markets.

The differences between us start to arise over what sort of intervention will work. What is it, exactly, that the Government and the regulator can do that will help the consumer most? The right hon. Lady believes that the change we need is regulation—price regulation. Labour now wants two regulatory interventions on prices. First, it wants legislation so that the Government can fix prices through a temporary 20-month price freeze. In addition, she now wants the energy regulator to intervene when retail prices do not quickly follow changes in wholesale prices. Such price control would be a massive, permanent state intervention.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that the motion talks about the importance of passing on wholesale cost changes as quickly as possible, while also calling for a price freeze?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend has spotted a point to which I will return. There is a bit of inconsistency there.

The historians among us might note that the two proposals for price control regulations are particularly interesting because they reverse the policy that Labour backed in government. In 2002, under Labour, Ofgem abolished all price controls on gas and electricity. Is it not interesting that, even though there is now more competition than in 2002, Labour has done a U-turn and wants price control regulations back?

[Mr Sheerman]

I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but he has spoken about history and about inconsistencies in Labour policy. We were all prepared to oppose the greenest Government ever. If he wants to get the history right, he will recognise that there has been a wholesale retreat from that commitment.

[Mr Davey]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. This is the greenest Government ever. We have the green investment bank. We have more than doubled renewable electricity. Low-carbon electricity is booming. This is the top place in Europe for renewable electricity, the best place in the world for offshore wind, the best place in the world for tidal investment and the second best place in the world for biomass. I could go on. I hope that he intervenes on that point again.

As I was saying, the interventionist approach of the Opposition is not our approach. We want to aim our intervention at ensuring that our energy markets are more competitive and work harder for consumers. We want to get more energy firms into the market, make it easier for customers to change energy supplier when they do not get a good deal and prevent firms from abusing their market dominance. Price controls will not do any of that.

My argument today is that our reforms to Britain’s energy market are beginning to work. Increased competition is beginning to help people not only to freeze but to cut energy bills. Our approach, fixing the messed-up energy markets we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition, is now bearing fruit.

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

The concern is the inelasticity of prices, especially in their coming down. I am pleased that the Competition and Markets Authority is looking at the market. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a solution to price volatility would be to move from centralised energy production to a system whereby individual customers—SMEs—produce their own energy, increasing long-term competition in the sector?

[Mr Davey]

I certainly believe that local energy generation is key in driving competition. I am proud that it was this Government who published Britain’s first-ever community energy strategy to help local communities and individuals and small businesses to generate energy.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Davey]

I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene, but then I must make some progress.

[Michael Connarty]

It is very important that the Minister is not allowed to get away with an empty boast. The Energy and Climate Change Committee report states that

“gas and electricity have risen by 41% and 20% in the UK in real terms. . . This has had an adverse impact on fuel poor households and thrown Government targets to eliminate the problem by 2016 off-course.”

How can the right hon. Gentleman boast that prices are being cut in real terms when the facts in the Committee’s report deny that?

[Mr Davey]

Let me be fair to the hon. Gentleman—

[Michael Connarty]

Answer the question.

[Mr Davey]

I am about to do so. I said that our reforms are beginning to work. It is true—that is what I said. I admit that energy prices have gone up in this Parliament, but they have gone up slower than they did in the last Parliament, when energy bills went up faster on average every year than they have in this Parliament. Indeed, fuel poverty went up under Labour, whereas the latest statistics show it falling. The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davey]

No, I will not; I am going to make some progress.

Pursuing the Opposition’s policies would be nothing short of a disaster, not just for consumers but for investment, for decarbonisation and for energy security. If any Government were so misguided as to intervene with the two prices regulations proposed by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) it would lead to chaos in our energy system.

Today’s latest debate on energy prices does have something new—well, sort of new. The right hon. Lady—quite rightly, in my view—wants us to focus on the fact that while wholesale prices for gas and electricity have by and large fallen in recent months, most energy companies have yet to cut their retail prices. Many people, over many years, have looked at this phenomenon—at the way in which wholesale and retail energy prices relate to each other and at how there always seems to be a time lag between changes in wholesale prices and in retail prices, especially when wholesale prices are falling. The explanation that energy firms give for this time lag is the way in which they buy their wholesale energy: to spread their risks and hedge, to smooth out the prices they charge customers, they buy much of their gas and electricity six months, 12 months, 18 months or even further ahead on the futures markets. Therefore, energy firms claim, they cannot immediately pass on today’s wholesale price falls, because the gas or electricity they are supplying was bought at the higher prices of months past. The right hon. Lady spoke a lot about that. Like many people before her, she is worried about the so-called rocket and feather problem: the energy companies appear all too ready to allow their retail prices to go up like a rocket when wholesale prices rise, but when wholesale prices fall their retail prices are no longer rockets but feathers, gently falling ever so slowly so that the energy firms can profit.

That argument leads to two questions: first, is it true? Do energy prices follow this rocket and feather model? Secondly, if it is true, what should we do about it? My answers to these questions are clear. It may well be true—there seems to be evidence that it happens. It was one of the reasons I asked the competition authorities last year to undertake the first-ever annual competition assessment of the energy markets. Interestingly, the independent competition authorities stated:

“We have found that suppliers do not adjust their prices as quickly when costs fall compared to when wholesale costs rise.”

In fact, it was one of a number of reasons and findings that led Ofgem to propose a market investigation reference. That is exactly what I think we should support when faced with such a worrying finding for consumers. There should be a no-holds barred inquiry by independent experts, whom we have given real teeth to act for consumers. That is the action that the right hon. Lady should be proposing and that I am backing as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davey]

No.

I am not the first Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to be confronted with the problem of wholesale and retail energy prices—the possibility of a rocket and feather consumer energy price rip-off. As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, presided over a period in which wholesale prices crashed and retail prices did not. When he did my job, between September 2008 and January 2010, wholesale prices actually fell faster than the figures set out in the Opposition’s motion. Wholesale electricity prices on the day-ahead market fell not by the 23% mentioned in the motion but by 62.5%. Under the Leader of the Opposition, wholesale gas prices to businesses fell not by 38% but by 43%. A big driver of those falls was, of course, the massive recession, and they went on so long that, eventually, retail prices for consumers fell—but only by a bit: electricity by 7.5%, not the 62.5% fall in wholesale prices enjoyed by the energy firms, and gas by 5.6%, not the wholesale fall of 43%.

The energy prices rocket and feather phenomenon is, therefore, not new. I thought it would be worth finding out what lessons we have to learn from my predecessor, the leader of the Labour party. What did he do when he had the power? He called a summit—a summit. He reported back to this House on what action he had taken:

“I impressed upon the companies the need for retail energy prices to reflect changes in wholesale prices as soon as possible.”

He “impressed upon” them that retail prices should reflect wholesale prices “as soon as possible”. It just never happened. But, to be fair, he went further, in standing up to the energy companies. He told the House that

“The Government and the industry are agreed on the need to bring down retail gas and electricity prices.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2008; Vol. 483, c. 14WS.]

It was “agreed”; it just never happened—it never reflected wholesale prices. Perhaps that was because, a month later, the Labour leader backed down. He said—fiercely, no doubt, and the right hon. Lady should listen to this—

“We have recently seen big falls in wholesale gas and electricity prices, but I understand that because energy companies tend to buy in advance they won't be passed on immediately.”

It sounds as though he was more impressed upon than impressive.

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Mr Davey]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady, who will no doubt tell us why the Leader of the Labour party was unable, when doing my job, to do anything.

[Caroline Flint]

The proposition is that we should, across the House, recognise that when wholesale costs fall they are not passed on quickly enough. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that leaving things to the market does not achieve that and that the proposition that a regulator should have the power is the way forward—yes or no?

[Mr Davey]

I have already said that I believe that there is a problem—Ofgem and the competition authorities told us that in the report I commissioned. I think there is a need for intervention—that is what I have been saying. The question is: what is the right intervention? Is it the price regulations proposed by Labour—the quite big interventions that I shall explain when I describe how they would work—or is it to ask the independent experts from the competition authorities to ensure that our markets work for consumers. The latter is what we are doing, and I think it is the right approach.

The Leader of the Opposition tells the Government all the time that we should stand up to the energy companies. That leads me to the not unreasonable conclusion that he must have stood up to the energy companies—that he must have a proud record of taking on energy firms at some stage. So I did some more research to find out what tough action the leader of the Labour party took. I was convinced that he of all people, faced with much larger falls in wholesale prices than we face today, would have acted. I therefore commissioned the research on what action Labour’s leader, when Energy Secretary, had actually taken on wholesale energy prices—what announcements he had made.

The research has come back, so let me read it:

“You asked for any statements of information provided by the last government on the link between wholesale and retail energy prices”—[Interruption.]

The right hon. Lady should listen to this:

“I’m afraid there was no substantial policy in this area by the previous government and as a result no announcements.”

There was nothing. The Leader of the Opposition simply did not have the same great ideas as the right hon. Lady.

Perhaps I am being too harsh. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not advised to take the various actions we have taken, such as our support for a reference of such problems to the independent competition authorities—in other words, the experts. My research, however, suggests that the Labour party was told to act when he was doing my job. In fact, we have found that he was told to act on at least three occasions.

The Leader of the Opposition was asked three times to refer the issue of energy prices to the Competition Commission, and three times he refused. On 5 March 2009, he said:

“I do not think that at this stage a referral to the Competition Commission is the right way to go”.—[Official Report, 5 March 2009; Vol. 488, c. 983.]

On 7 December 2009, he said:

“It is better to look at policy options…rather than at a lengthy Competition Commission investigation.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 45.]

Of course, he did not actually take any policy options. On 25 February 2010, he was still in denial:

“I am not in favour of referring these matters to the Competition Commission”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 444.]

That is what Labour’s then Energy Secretary said, so my advice to the right hon. Member for Don Valley is this: stop embarrassing your leader.

For the sake of debate, let me accept another Labour U-turn on energy policy. Let me imagine that the Labour leader has thought more about it, listened to the right hon. Lady and changed his mind. Let me examine their proposals for two new price controls and how they would work.

As set out in the motion, Labour now has two competing ideas. The first is a temporary energy price freeze for 20 months, which is a policy to lock in a price, regardless of what happens in the wholesale markets. If wholesale prices go up, the smaller energy suppliers that cannot soak up the losses will go bankrupt. We have never received an answer to that. If wholesale prices go down, companies hedging against the freeze will have to maintain their prices and customers will lose out. The right hon. Lady is shaking her head, but companies that hedge against a freeze will lose money and potentially go bankrupt under her policy. She does not understand how markets work.

[Ian Swales]

Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the chief executive of First Utility, the largest independent supplier, says of the prize-freeze proposal:

“Bluntly, it could put me under”?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the new independent suppliers who are coming into the market and taking on the big six companies created under Labour do not like the policy, because they know it would undermine competition, put them out of business and be bad for consumers. Although we have debated many times the price-freeze intervention proposed by the right hon. Member for Don Valley, she still has not convinced anyone. We have shown time and again that it is just a damaging con.

The second, and latest, price control is proposed legislation to force energy companies to pass on variations in the wholesale markets more rapidly, which is sort of the exact opposite of a price freeze. Rather than keeping prices the same, this price regulation seems to want them to change more frequently and more rapidly, mirroring the wholesale markets.

That is interesting, because if we look at what has happened recently, we will see that wholesale prices can go up and down on a daily basis. A fortnight ago, wholesale prices were falling: day-ahead electricity prices fell by 7% and the natural gas spot price fell by 12%. Last week, however, the day-ahead electricity price went up four days out of five, ending up at almost 6% by the end of the week, and the natural gas spot price was up 10% by the end of the week. In other words, the spot prices on the wholesale markets go up and down—they are very volatile and fluctuate all the time.

The price regulation proposed by the right hon. Lady is a rollercoaster approach to energy price freezes. I call it Labour’s bungee-jumping approach to energy prices, and one would be hard pressed to think of a more incoherent and inconsistent approach. It is a populist, opportunist, soundbite approach to energy policy that would not just hit investment but leave consumers worse off. In other words, yet another con.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is not the key difference that we are now in a situation where, because of the flatlining of the economy for the past three or four years—[Laughter.] It is all very well laughing, but real wages have fallen through the floor as prices have rocketed. People are being thrust into abject poverty, particularly those at the bottom for whom energy makes up a bigger proportion of their expenditure. People are in desperation, which is why we need action now. That desperation was not the case in the past.

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for that intervention because it shows that Labour has not even looked at what is happening to the economy. Employment is going up and unemployment is going down; inflation and the deficit are going down, and growth is up. The hon. Gentleman ought to notice that.

Let me ask a few questions about Labour’s latest policy. How would Labour’s bungee-jumping energy price regulation work? Let us try to get our heads round what is proposed—Labour wants to be in government in under a year, so I am sure it has thought through the detail. Would Labour legislate to force companies to pass on each and every cut in wholesale prices? Would it give Ofgem that power? How frequently would the link between wholesale and retail prices be made, and which wholesale price would Labour choose for Ofgem to intervene with? The day-ahead or the month-ahead price, or perhaps something else in the futures market? I think we should know. Which all-seeing, all-knowing official in Labour’s new energy Gosplan regulator would work that all out?

[Caroline Flint]

rose—

[Mr Davey]

Oh, some answers—I am looking forward to this.

[Caroline Flint]

I understand that Ofgem—the regulator —wrote to all energy companies last week to say that they should pass on reductions in wholesale costs. Has the Secretary of State had a word with Ofgem about its expectations of how that should be achieved?

[Mr Davey]

I have spoken to Ofgem’s chief executive, Dermot Nolan. He is worried because the Labour party wants to get rid of Ofgem, even though it is doing this fine job and talking to energy companies. Ofgem is worried that Labour wants to undermine the regulatory system. Interestingly, who set up Ofgem? The Labour party. Who reformed Ofgem just a few years ago to make it more effective? The Leader of the Opposition. There is no consistency or coherence about anything on energy policy from Labour.

Let us consider some more basic questions—Labour Members will have to answer them at some stage if they are to be vaguely credible. If the regulation forces energy bills to drop immediately when day-ahead wholesale prices drop, what will that mean when wholesale prices rise? Will the regulation be exactly same both ways? If regulation forces retail prices to track wholesale prices, how often will a consumer’s energy bill have to be recalculated and what will be the cost of that? Who will be the genius who second-guesses companies’ forward buying strategies, and decides whether they are good or bad? Will all suppliers have to purchase at the same time for the same contract period in Labour’s brave new world?

The logic of the massive state price control that Labour is proposing is clear: Labour wants to destroy the forward energy markets. It wants to end competition between companies, which is based on who has the brightest and best purchasing strategy to deal with things such as events in the UK or in Iraq, and manage those sorts of problems. If we end that competition, who will lose when the risks are greater? It will be consumers who pay in higher prices.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Davey]

Forward markets help reduce risk and therefore help reduce prices for consumers. They help competition and smooth prices for consumers that make fixed-price deals.

[Paul Flynn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I came to the Chamber expecting a debate about energy prices. Nowhere on the Order Paper does it say that we would be treated to a drivelling, ad hominem attack on the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. You have made your point, Mr Flynn, but it is up to the Secretary of State whether he wishes to give way. He is giving way now and again. It is not as though he could not hear you, so I suspect he is not giving way by choice.

[Mr Davey]

The House can probably see why I made that choice—[Interruption.] Frit? That is a joke.

The forward markets help competition, smooth prices for customers and make fixed-price deals possible. Under Labour’s proposals, there would be no more fixed-price deals for consumers—ironically, the area in which competition between companies is greatest. The plain truth is that this latest headline-grabbing, price-control state intervention is as unworkable and damaging as Labour’s last one. Just like under the last Labour Government, such policies would simply mess up our energy markets and hit consumers hard. Labour reduced competition and created the big six. We have had the hard task of clearing up Labour’s energy mess. This Government have reformed the energy markets and boosted competition so that the big six—created by Labour—are now being challenged like never before.

We have seen 12 new entrants into the market. The share of independent energy firms has risen from less than 1% to almost 6%—and fast. According to Energy UK, in May this year for the first time ever more than half of people switching switched to an independent supplier. Small suppliers have gained more than 1 million customers since May last year.

The Government have worked to help all consumers. We have been harder and more effective in working for consumers in just four years than Labour managed in 13. We have championed switching, acting to make it simpler, with fewer confusing tariffs and easier to read bills—all things that Labour never did. People now understand the choices they have and are more confident about switching. We have acted to speed up switching too. Ofgem this week confirmed that switching times will be cut in half by the end of the year, from the ridiculous more than five weeks that we inherited, and that we are on course for my objective of 24-hour switching within four years.

We have even acted to encourage new forms of switching. Labour talked about the collective principle, but never did anything about it. The Cheaper Energy Together firm is piloting initiatives around the country that have saved tens of thousands of people millions of pounds. Just today, in the latest collective switch—the Big Deal—we learned that customers on a typical standard tariff with a big six supplier could save £210 by switching to the new deal delivered for consumers who have come together to buy energy. That is a new deal from an independent energy supplier which entered the UK energy market only last year. That is competition working.

We are always looking to do more for consumers, to sharpen competition and to explore new business models. That is our approach to helping people cut their bills. At the next election, the choice on energy bills will be clear. People can either trust Labour politicians to fix energy prices for them with state intervention or they can trust the growing number of new, smaller energy suppliers which are already delivering for millions of people, taking on Labour’s big six with competition. People can opt for the right hon. Lady’s approach to improving our energy markets—policy on the hoof with 1970s-style price controls—or they could opt for the most detailed ever, in-depth inquiry into Britain’s energy markets by independent experts.

Above all, at the next election, people can vote for energy price freezes under Labour or back the cuts in energy bills our policies are now making happen. Labour and the Leader of the Opposition flunked energy policy when they were in office. We must not ever let them do that again to Britain’s energy system.

17:19

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

In a debate for which we have two and a quarter hours, the Secretary of State has spoken for half an hour. He spent his time attacking what the Labour Government did six years ago. That is outrageous. Once again, we have seen the reinvention of history. The Secretary of State is so out of touch with the people of this country that it is a disgrace that he is still in office. If he had any decency, he would throw the towel in and go and get a job that he can actually do something in.

We are here today to talk about prices and costs. That has nothing to do with the reinvention of history and nothing to do with the previous Government—although the previous Government gave the Secretary of State the job he has today. If it had not been for the previous Government, we would not be talking about energy and climate change. It was the previous Government who set that up with, I have to say, help from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition at that time. His own party, the Liberals, were against having a balanced energy policy, because they did not like the balance. Let us put everything in perspective: if the Liberals were honourable, they would not take up a post in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, because they were totally against what the Labour party and the Conservative party wanted at the time. Our parties worked together to meet the needs of the nation. It seems now that the agreement we have had over the years has gone out of the window. I blame the Secretary of State for that. Until he came into the job there was still a friendship between the parties to ensure that energy was in place to meet the needs of the nation.

The cost of electricity and gas has gone down. That is a fact, otherwise Ofgem would not be trying to get in touch with all the companies to ask them what they are going to do. We have been in this position before, and companies were fined for not bringing down the price quickly enough. I have a lot of constituents in fuel poverty. The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who asked questions from his party brief, might not have any people in fuel poverty in their constituencies, but I have plenty. I have to support them and look after them, and I want prices down to where they should be. The Minister of State laughs and says we are out of touch. I am sorry Minister of State, but we are so much in touch with the people we represent. It may be time for those on the Government Front Bench to have a reality check.

On prices and the amount of money that has been, shall we say, siphoned off by energy companies, the Secretary of State talks about transparency. There is no transparency in the energy companies. He talks about having a look and seeing where the money goes. The Select Committee has tried that. We asked experts to try to look at the books and understand what energy companies do with their money, but they cannot work it out. At a meeting with EDF yesterday, I told them that until such time as they get their act together and become totally transparent—showing the books for us to be able to read and understand—people will not trust them. Until they do that, we will still be calling for price reductions. To prove that they do not deserve to have their prices reduced, they will have to open the books and make them totally transparent to Parliament. We have to be able to say, “Yes, they are right and they should not have to have a reduction.” They deliberately do not do that. I have to conclude from that that they do not want it to happen and are hiding something. This is for the Government to pursue, but they have not done so.

Ofgem has done a particularly poor job—let us be honest. I agree that it is not as bad as a lot of people think, but, having said that, it has not done a particularly good job. It is so slow at doing things it is not true. Perhaps a stick of dynamite somewhere might be helpful, but I expect that stick of dynamite to come from the Secretary of State—not from me and not from the Opposition, but from the Government. It is time the Secretary of State got his act together and sorted out Ofgem. He still has some time left before the general election. When the Labour party wins the election we will obviously have to sort it out.

Let me give the House an example. A reduction in wholesale prices managed to give the chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, Alistair Phillips-Davies a £2.7 million annual salary. That is obscene, and it does not include his bonuses. That is the kind of thing we are subsidising. We are subsidising chief executives receiving lots of money. We are subsidising money being invested who knows where. At one stage, ScottishPower was taking £800 million from Scotland through Spain to the United States. We should not allow that to happen.

If the Secretary of State stands up and has a go at Ofgem, I will be right behind him to help him, but with the best will in the world, he does not seem to be looking after the needs of the nation at this time. I want him to do so—it is important that he looks after the needs of the nation. If that means that energy companies have to tighten their belts, they can join the rest of us doing so Everybody else has to tighten their belt, so why should they not cut back a wee bit on their profits for the needs of the nation, rather than siphoning money away from the UK to Germany, Spain or France? That is not right and I expect our Government to look at it.

The companies have tried to blackmail us. They said that if we freeze energy prices, all hell will be let loose, but then one company said it will freeze its prices. The idea of freezing is to sort the problem out. The idea is not to put prices up or down, but to stop people getting ripped off the way they have been over the years, and to ensure that our Government look after the people who are important.

[Ian Swales]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Robertson]

I am not interested—I have only a few seconds left.

It is important that the Government remember the people who are in fuel poverty instead of attacking people because of policies that happened years ago.

17:26

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson). I am sure our constituencies have something in common. We have snow every year in Rossendale and Darwen, and I am sure Glasgow has snow every year too. Energy prices are a concern to residents in my constituency because of the harsh winters. Mercifully, last winter was relatively mild, but we may have a harsh winter ahead of us.

I am pleased to speak in this important debate on energy prices. I want to talk briefly about the action the Government have taken so far to reduce bills and the concerns of my constituents about the difficulty in switching. Finally, if I get a moment at the end, I want to address the issues faced by those on non-conventional fuel, by which I mean liquefied petroleum gas and oil-fired central heating, which is a problem in my constituency for those in rural properties. As I go through my speech, I am sure I will refer to the motion several times.

In 2010, when the Government inherited a broken and dysfunctional energy market, it was imperative that they acted and took steps to restore it. Let us look at some of the problems that existed at that time. Fuel poverty doubled between 2005 and 2010, despite a commitment in the Labour party’s 2005 manifesto to eradicate it. We went from having 15 energy suppliers in the market in 2000 to having the big six, which were given to us in 2010. Bewilderingly, in 2010, there were in excess of 4,000 energy tariffs for people to choose from. Bills climbed by 50% in Labour’s period in office. We had a perfect storm of reduced competition in the market, rising global energy prices, which drove bills up, and green taxes imposed on every household, which put up individual bills. That situation would have been difficult enough for families to deal with if the record of incompetence and dithering had not reached every other part of the Government and gifted families a huge recession to deal with at the same time as they had to deal with rising energy costs.

Our Government set out to reform that dysfunctional market. By deregulating the market, insurgent energy companies such as Ovo have come into it to drive competition. There have been nine new entrants to the market in the past two years—the number of people getting energy from such smaller independent companies has trebled. Recently, the Government knocked £50 on average off a bill by rolling back some of the green taxes on families. We have also simplified tariffs, going from having the bewildering 4,000 tariffs I mentioned to having just over 400.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned that people are often too busy to look at switching. I have switched my energy supplier on a reasonably regular basis, but when I looked at my bill two days ago and was given a meter reading, I was reminded of the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to everyone in this country to try to help to reduce their energy costs. On my bill was a note saying that I was on the cheapest variable tariff, but there was also another note—in a prominent position, on an EDF bill—saying that if I switched to the online saver, I could save a further £85 a year on a dual fuel bill. I had never seen that on my bill before and, knowing that this debate was coming up, I was grateful for it. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is claiming credit—I will have to buy him a beer now that he has saved me 85 quid—but there was also a personal commitment from this Government to help to reduce bills, which is something we have already done.

Switching is often the best way to save money, but we must make it faster and simpler. Lots of my constituents contact me to say, “It seems bizarre that I can now move bank accounts in a week or even a few days, but it can take me up to five weeks to switch my energy supplier.” I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the work he has already done, getting the agreement of energy companies to halve that to two and a half weeks by the end of this year, but I hope and believe that the Government can go further. There is no reason why we cannot have 24-hour switching. It needs to be fast, easy and simple, so that people can do it on a regular basis.

We also need to give more consideration to hard-to-reach switchers. Going on the internet is not for everyone. We have people in rural communities who do not have broadband and older people who do not feel comfortable using a computer. That is why we must look at campaigns such as uSwitch’s “Send us your bill” for ways to support those who have not switched and the hard-to-reach switchers to make that saving. I run a switching campaign in my constituency every year in the winter to try to encourage people to switch. Other services are available, but uSwitch has been a huge support to me in that work and done excellent work on reducing bills.

Despite those efforts and the Government’s work, however, bills have still risen. Global energy prices are now starting to fall. I echo the content of the motion, which says in terms that there is a suspicion that the rocket and feather approach is being applied to the price falls, which are not being passed on to consumers. I would go beyond suspicion: I would say that there is evidence. That is why I support the independent Competition and Markets Authority inquiry. We must ensure that the Government’s action to reduce people’s bills is passed on to consumers. An independent inquiry, with consumers and competition at its heart, is the best way to do that.

Finally, I want to talk about non-conventional heating sources: oil and liquefied petroleum gas, particularly in rural areas. I am disappointed that the motion does not address that issue, because it is a challenge to farmers and people in rural areas, who have seen the cost of oil and, in particular, LPG increase significantly. Lots of those businesses, which are off-grid, are energy-intensive users. I hope and believe that the Secretary of State will look at what can be done to help off-grid consumers and support their businesses.

17:33

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

It does seem to me sometimes in these debates that it is the same old gang assembling to go over their greatest hits. However, the recent decision to make a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority has changed the scene significantly. I support the referral and hope that a decision will come fairly swiftly, although the history of such referrals does not give me a great deal of confidence.

[Mr Davey]

My previous job was as competition Minister and we reformed the processes so it is quicker.

[Mr Weir]

I will wait and see how quick “quicker” is.

It is interesting to look at some of the reasons that Ofgem give for the referral. It notes that average dual fuel prices increased by 24% between 2009 and 2013, which is just over 10% higher than general inflation over the same period. At the same time, energy consumption has decreased. In effect, even though consumers are perhaps reacting to the message of saving energy, they are still seeing substantial costs, leading many to question the cost-effectiveness of energy-saving measures. I have made the point before that one of the defects of the green deal scheme is that many consumers simply no longer trust the energy companies and will be reluctant to take part in any scheme—even a good one—that they are promoting. This is borne out by the state of the market assessment, which says:

“We found evidence of low levels of consumer satisfaction. Only 51-52 per cent of customers said they were satisfied with their supplier, and customer complaints have increased by more than 50 per cent since the beginning of 2011. Our survey evidence showed that in 2013, 43 per cent of customers did not trust energy suppliers to be open and transparent in their dealings with consumers, an increase of 4 percentage points from the previous year.”

Not surprisingly, it concluded:

“Levels of customer confidence and trust are not what we would expect to see in an industry that is successful in meeting its customers’ needs and expectations.”

That is a fairly damning indictment of the way consumers view the major energy companies, and should not come as a huge shock to anyone who has dealt with the issue. This is especially true since the assessment also notes that between 2009 and 2012, the earnings before interest and tax, as it puts it, of the energy companies have shown a very substantial rise of around £700 million, standing as of 2012 at £3.7 billion.

It is interesting to note that within non-domestic supply, profits have fallen slightly, while domestic supply profits have increased from £233 million to £1,190 million —a staggering rise over a four-year period. It seems to me that there must be something wrong with that. Clearly, the hard-pressed consumer was bearing the brunt of the massive price rises at a time when wages were, at best, static and other essential costs such as food were also rising sharply. It is no wonder that many of our constituents were feeling under very considerable financial pressure, and many still feel that they are seeing no benefit from a recovering economy, when their family circumstances remain very tight indeed.

It was interesting to hear what the Secretary of State said about the rocket and feather approach. I am not an expert on hedging, but it seems to me that its object is to prevent sudden price spikes or price falls. Whether it comes down like a feather is one side of the equation, but if it is going up by a rocket, the hedging strategy is clearly not working. We must question whether the energy companies are truly taking part in a hedging strategy, or whether this might be just another excuse. The Competition and Markets Authority needs to look at that.

The figures on the costs are only part of the picture. It is all very well talking about the average cost of a dual fuel bill, but that disguises a multitude of other consumers who are on much more expensive deals. I have often cited the costs that those on prepayment meters face. Although it is true that many companies set those tariffs to the rate of their standard domestic tariff, those are still much higher than the tariffs for those who can pay by direct debit or have dual fuel or fixed-term deals, many of which are not available to those on prepayment meters. The situation can be much worse for those who have debts because the meter can be set at a very high recovery rate. Research by Citizens Advice Scotland disclosed cases where some people had £7 out of every £10 they paid taken towards arrears.

Governments have consistently argued—we have heard it again today—that switching is the way for people to save money. The truth is that those who would benefit most from switching are those who find it very difficult, if not impossible, to switch. Those who are most active in switching are those who are already on better deals. As Ofgem put it in its report:

“Customers that are prepared to manage their accounts online, pay by direct debit, and fix the cost of energy for 12-18 months are able to get the best deals.”

It is also true, it seems to me, that the amount that can be saved is relatively small; the differences between the best online deals of the major companies tend not to be great and the benefits of repeated switching are subject to a law of diminishing returns.

It is also the case, however, that the very nature of these deals—managing accounts online, paying by direct debit and so forth—tend to exclude those who are the most fuel poor since they are also the least likely to have bank accounts, or at least bank accounts prepared to accept direct debit payments, and the least likely to have ready access to a computer to enable them to manage their accounts online.

[Jake Berry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Weir]

No, as many others wish to speak.

In many of the rural areas of our constituencies, the banks have been in retreat for many years, so that many even quite large villages no longer have a bank branch, and some of the smaller towns are seeing banks close. The banks are, like so many other businesses, retreating to the internet, which increases the isolation and difficulties for those who do not have ready access to it in the area of energy switching as in so many other areas.

There are other ways in which the energy companies may be—I will not say “fixing the market”, but Ofgem talks of “tacit co-ordination”. It has said:

“Several firms’ business plans stated that they wait until competitors have announced their price changes, not just to avoid the adverse publicity of going first with a price rise, but to assess the extent of their own price adjustment.”

Is that not an example of what we have described all along as a “follow-my-leader” attitude among the companies? None of them will step far out of line. In a true competition, one would expect some companies to be prepared to take a hit on profits in the short term, at least, in order to build up their business, but that does not seem to be happening in this instance.

The Secretary of State attacked Labour policy. I myself remain very sceptical about many aspects of it, especially the price freeze, but I entirely agree that the regulator should have the power to force energy suppliers to pass wholesale price cuts on to consumers if the suppliers themselves fail to do so, and I will therefore be supporting the motion. However, let me issue one plea to both the Opposition and the Government Front Benches. Every time we talk about energy, we talk about the big six and dual fuel: gas and electricity. The poor off-grid customers are being left out again: they pay more than anyone else. Please will someone grasp that nettle?

17:41

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).

I often ponder on what could possibly be worse than an Energy Department being run by a Liberal Democrat. The answer has been made clear to me today: the worst possible outcome could be an Energy Department run by a Labour politician who would happily enact policies that would put everyone’s energy bills up in the long term and push more people into fuel poverty. Let me explain how that will happen, first by examining the economics behind an energy price freeze and then by examining the Opposition’s form and policy in this area.

The debate provides an excellent opportunity for us to demonstrate yet again that price controls are not an effective means of achieving improving standards of living, as they go against any notion of economic common sense. In fact, at a time when the Government should be focusing on providing incentives for improvement in the quality and quantity of energy provision, imposing price controls would achieve exactly the opposite effect, leading to a shortage of energy as consumers who want it at the artificially lowered price cannot gain access to a supply adequate to cater for their needs.

Price controls are Government restrictions on how much can be charged for the good or service in question in the market. In this case, the Opposition propose a price ceiling that would prevent gas and electricity prices from exceeding a maximum price decided by some fantastic new regulator. From an economic standpoint, the proposed price control would be problematic, as it would distort the price mechanism’s ability to allocate resources to the highest-valued uses. In unhampered markets, prices work to co-ordinate supply and demand and ration existing resources relatively —I would say very—efficiently. By manipulating the market price, controls such as those proposed by the Opposition distort that process, and result in both direct and indirect perverse repercussions.

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

Notwithstanding all that the Government profess to have done to end fuel poverty, Northern Ireland still has the highest level of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom. How would the hon. Gentleman and his party suggest that my constituents solve their fuel poverty problems?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I shall say something about fuel poverty later in my speech, but I believe that a huge majority of Northern Ireland fuel customers are off grid, and that solutions are currently being sought.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will take just one more intervention, from my good friend the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Perhaps I can help here. Because of the interventions, I shall have to reduce the time limit for speeches, and one of the first to be affected will be the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk.

[Michael Connarty]

Nevertheless, the point that I am about to make is very relevant. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the European Parliament. The European Union has restricted roaming charges and other charges that have been used excessively by telecoms companies. It is saying that that does not work. Is that not exactly what the hon. Gentleman is attacking in the context of energy prices?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Indeed, and across Europe those very same telecoms companies are now coming to Governments saying they are not investing as much as they used to, because they have not got as much money as they would have had otherwise.

A direct effect of price ceilings is a shortage of supply. In an unhampered market, especially in energy where supply and demand are balanced by the free-functioning price mechanism, if the Government were to impose a price ceiling below the market price, as is proposed, the quantity of energy supply would fall as it would make less financial sense for companies to produce, while demand for energy would increase as a result of the lower prices. The result would be a shortage of energy, with consumers unable to find satisfactory supply.

In addition to the direct negative effects of price control, a series of indirect effects would emerge from the Government manipulation of prices proposed by the Opposition. While price controls do legally change the price, they cannot overcome the fundamental economic issue of deciding how to allocate scarce resources among an array of feasible alternatives. In the absence of the ability to use prices to ration scarce goods, alternative mechanisms emerge. Shortages, for example, would lead to long queues, as happened in the United States in the past because of gas prices, and backlogs, which tend to lead to subsequent Government interventions such as rationing schemes.

Most people understand that the controlling of energy prices, which has been tried before in the UK and elsewhere, has conclusively failed. For proof, we can look west, to California’s experience with price controls on retail energy, which led to shortages manifested in rolling power cuts throughout the state.

Even more importantly, price controls would discourage energy companies from making new, long-term investments, which is precisely what is needed to increase the supply of energy and improve standards of living. What this means is that, at best, the Opposition’s strategy might provide short-term benefits in the form of lower energy bills for a few, but with the associated cost of some form of deterioration in quality and quantity of supply in the immediate future. In the long run, prices would have to go up because the universal improvement in supply would fall away completely. The Opposition policy would have the exact opposite effect on prices from what they intend.

All economic knowledge and sense dictate that the Opposition idea is wrong-headed and misguided. If their goal is to improve standards of living, policy must focus, as it currently does, on incentivising and improving the quality and quantity of supply. Price controls serve to achieve the exact opposite, lowering the standard of living of many while providing political gains for few. The proposal must be dismissed as an uninformed fallacy.

However, we should not be surprised that the Leader of the Opposition and his party are focusing on a price freeze and the cost of living. The right hon. Gentleman is essentially just watching his own back, for it was he, in his previous guise of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who drove through policies that he knew would drive up prices for consumers and drive people into fuel poverty. He was happy for that to happen—there was no concern at all about a cost of living crisis. Indeed, back when he was Energy Secretary, the Labour leader gave the LSE Ralph Miliband lecture. On 19 November 2009, he explicitly confirmed that his policies would see energy bills rise:

“It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”

In January 2010, the Labour leader was even more candid:

“Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty; but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.”

[John Robertson]

rose—

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

There was no concern about a cost of living crisis then whatever: no concern for the poor—no concern for the people living in fuel poverty in Glasgow, I would suggest.

These policies are a fallacy; they are directly wrong. I hope the British people will be sensible and make sure that they are rejected fully at the next general election.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I now introduce a six-minute time limit.

17:49

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) for my six-minute rather than seven-minute speech!

The rise in energy prices is having a real impact on the financial stability and quality of life of people right across the UK. I say to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that it is ludicrous to suggest that there was no concern about this matter under the previous Government. Some of what he said was hysterical hyperbole, which is not welcome in this debate. What we are talking about is a cost of living crisis that is happening now, not four years ago, which is why we are proposing a range of measures today.

We know that the cost of wholesale energy has fallen, yet consumers are still paying more than they should. That is of particular concern to my constituents, because, despite the unusual and lovely weather at home at the moment, it is not always warm in West Dunbartonshire, and people have to spend a higher percentage of their income on heating their homes. I am not talking about luxury. West Dunbartonshire has a high proportion of elderly people and people with long-term and chronic conditions. Keeping warm is about not just keeping well but, in some cases, keeping alive.

It is worth pointing out that when we talk about the varying costs of living across the UK, we often focus on the high costs of housing in London, but for those of us who represent constituencies with much cooler climates, the higher costs that people have to spend on heating their homes are also a big issue, especially when we consider things such as the rates of the living wage.

Wholesale gas prices have fallen by 38% and electricity prices by 25%, yet last year energy companies raised their prices by 10%. We may have seen some commitment from a few energy companies to freeze their costs this year, but we should not be tricked into thinking that they are doing us a favour. If the cost of wholesale energy comes down, then so, too, should the bills of our constituents.

I am sure I am not alone in saying that I am frequently contacted by constituents overwhelmed by the cost of heating their homes, or confused by the complex regulation and delivery of their energy supply. It is clear that we need to reform the energy market. Turning on heating is not a luxury. I am not talking about fanciful spending. I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on the statistics. Earlier this month, the annual fuel poverty statistics projected that there would soon be 2.33 million households in fuel poverty in the UK, the main factor being the increasing cost of energy.

Last year, UK households spent an enormous £19.5 billion more on energy than they did a decade ago, an increase of 131%. Those are big figures, but what do they mean? Last year, real-terms average earnings slipped back to the levels of the decade before, which meant that people were—and still are—attempting to pay bills that are far above what they had been paying 10 years before, but were doing so with the same amount of money.

Around 100,000 people in Scotland, and 30% of households in my constituency, are living in fuel poverty. My constituents are already suffering from the Government’s austerity package, and energy is one area in which the Government, if they were serious, could take real action. Life is hard enough without energy companies focusing on their profits rather than on how to get energy prices down for their consumers. The energy market is suffering from a lack of competition, which allows suppliers to get away with it.

I hear what the Secretary of State says about switching, which is important, but I want all my constituents to pay less for their energy—not just those who switch and get a better deal. I would rather we focused on how to do that, rather than producing even more complicated information for people. Poor practice, bordering on immoral behaviour, has now become commonplace. The big six have incurred financial penalties totalling about £40 million, but that is small change for an industry with profits closer to £4 billion. We need to take action and I fully support the motion. I hope that the Government see sense and do the same.

17:55

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and to speak in this important Opposition day debate. By my recollection, it is the fourth energy debate tabled by the Opposition. It is an important issue and we should reflect the concerns of our constituents. However, it is a pity that Labour has chosen to table the motion from the relative comfort of the Opposition Benches, given that it had 13 years, the money, and the majority to do something about the issue that it now seems so concerned about.

This is an important debate and it is a pity that the motion makes no mention of diversifying our energy supply, which is inextricably bound up in high energy prices because of our reliance on imported hydrocarbons. Labour has talked about this issue in the past, but it does not seem to be in its motion today. What it does have, luckily, is an interest in passing on prices quickly and in making sure that there is a properly competitive market. It is just unfortunate, again, that the market the party bequeathed to us is not competitive.

The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said in a speech in the last energy debate that the big six are Labour’s oligopoly. He is absolutely right—it is Labour’s oligopoly, and it is this Government who are sorting out the competition issue by bringing in new players who want to be a part of our energy supply industry: nine new players in just the last two years. That will help us to drive down our energy costs, not drive them up.

I also note that the Opposition said that their price freeze will not affect investment. I do not think that that is true. Tony Cocker, the chief executive of E.ON, says that every time the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) opens his mouth, he drives up the cost of capital for firms such as his. That is the cost that they bear when they try to invest in our energy infrastructure.

We know that we need to spend about £110 billion in the next 10 years on our pipes, pylons and power stations to keep the lights switched on and the water warm. However, Labour’s proposals will damage that investment flow. E.ON itself, during the past five years, has invested about £7 billion in infrastructure. If we extrapolate that over the big six, over 10 years they will be investing about £75 billion in our infrastructure. That leaves a £35 billion gap between what we need invested and what is being spent. We need that extra investment to come from private enterprise, because if it does not, the poor old taxpayer—the GP, the factory worker or the van driver, who pay their taxes—will have to pick up the bill. Alternatively, it will have to be put on the bills of consumers, which means that bills will go up, thanks to Labour’s policy, which will cause investment to dry up.

The Opposition proposals are superficially attractive, but they will cost consumers and taxpayers more. I do not believe that if our voters and constituents think about it, they will be prepared to accept those costs. The way to deal with the challenge is not to freeze prices, but to reduce them. We could reduce prices quickly by rolling back some of the green levies that have been imposed in recent years. That would save consumers £50. Making it easier to switch and moving towards 24-hour switching could save consumers £200. Reducing the vast array of tariffs to just four and putting people on the tariff right for them could save them about £158. Those are ways in which we could help our constituents deal with the challenge—a long-term challenge that has been running for 40 or 50 years—of increasing oil and gas prices, rather than the con that the Opposition know they are proposing.

18:00

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We have seen family fuel bills go up by £300 on average since 2010. Families are feeling this increase because wages are not going up, but costs are rising continually. People are saying, “Look at the profits that those companies are making.” In south Wales, many people are served by SWALEC, which is part of SSE. It has made £1.55 billion profit, a 9% increase on last year. Average households across Britain are contributing £96 of their dual fuel bills to the profits of the companies. That is up from £44 on average per household last year. The profit margin is now 7% on dual fuel bills, up from 3% last year.

People are seeing a huge increase in companies’ profits and asking, “How can they can have a 9% increase in their profits whereas we are struggling because we are still on the same wages as we had a couple of years ago or maybe 1% up on what we had?” There are 2.33 million households in fuel poverty. It adds insult to injury when people find out that gas prices are 38% lower than last year on the wholesale market and electricity prices are 23% lower. People ask why they cannot share in that benefit. That is why the motion specifies that the regulator should have the powers to force the companies to pass on those decreases in price. That would bring immediate help and relief to families right across the UK.

On the mythical £50 back that the Government promised by taking the green taxes out of the fuel bill and putting them on to general taxation, we are all paying for that as taxpayers, yet that £50 reduction has not come through. It will be only a maximum of £50 and it is not getting through, so consumers are not having the benefit of that coming off their bills.

Let us look at some of the ways forward with our policies. It is interesting that SSE has said that it will legally separate its household supply business from its generation business, exactly as we have said we want to see. Members on the Government Benches have continually said it is impossible, yet SSE says that it will improve transparency and be a reform that is in the clear interests of customers. That is what one of the energy companies is telling us. It is saying, “Yes, we accept that Labour has a good idea and this ought to be done.”

Some 96% of households are supplied by the big six, which are also responsible for 70% of the generation. When the two are conflated, it is impossible for people to see what has happened or for the market to be fair. That is why market reform is key to what we propose to do. The price freeze that we suggest is an interim measure in order to get the market right. It is not an end in itself. It is about giving people a break so that we can introduce the reforms and get them working so that the market will work better for people and deliver lower prices.

As it happens, SSE has now announced a price freeze. Some cynics might say, “Well, a price freeze at a time when prices are falling is only a moderate step”, but at least it is trying to say that it is possible to look forward to 2016 and impose a freeze. We are saying that these reforms are possible and the energy companies know it, so what we need is the will to make them happen.

We would like the Government to have the will to say, “Look at the way prices have fallen this year. Let’s see if we can get that into people’s pockets for this winter.” That is what people want. We might not have another mild winter next year; it might be a severe one. People would like the opportunity to pay less this year, rather than having to wait for Labour to take over after the general election and impose the price freeze.

Another point I would like to make quickly relates to the sorry state of investment in renewables that we have seen under this Government. Despite what the Secretary of State tried to say at the Dispatch Box, whereas we had £7.2 billion of investment in 2010, it is down to £2.3 billion in 2014, which is a dramatic drop. SSE says that it now has grave doubts about continuing its offshore wind programme. That is because it does not get confidence from the Government and it does not get a feeling that it will be backed. It gets no clear and definitive messages on what the Government want to do on renewable energy. We would like to see a considerably greater and more consistent commitment to the development of renewables, which have a tremendous potential in this country. We should be a world leader on renewables.

18:06

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said that these debates are often attended by the same old gang, so I plead guilty to being part of it. I think that this is the fourth time we have debated this subject in this Parliament, but it is important that we do so. We all have constituents living in fuel poverty, and 700,000 people in this country work in energy-intensive industries, particularly in the north-east and the north-west. It matters very much that those industries are supported and that we do what is right for them. The issue is a serious one. The Secretary of State called it the “rocket and feather” issue, which I think is a good phrase. I think that we agree that the issue exists. The decision for the House is how we solve it: Labour’s method, or what the Government propose. I will talk a little about both.

There is a related debate that we never have, although I think that we will, either in this Parliament or the next. The big issue facing this country is not just about cost; it is also about security. We have to replace about 20 GW of supply by the end of the next decade. Our capacity margin in 2017 will apparently be 2%, which is almost too small to measure. This week the Secretary of State wrote to industries to ask them to volunteer for power cuts. I am a little less sanguine than he is about the efficacy of that.

How we solve that problem also goes to the heart of the Government’s and the Opposition’s approach to this serious issue: the changes in wholesale prices, on the face of it, are not being reflected in changes in the price of gas and electricity. It is right that Ofgem has been asked to investigate that and that there will be a full competition investigation. I do not know whether it is to do with the spot price, the forward price or the hedging price. I do not know whether it is to do with political risk, in the sense that energy companies will be cognisant of what the Opposition have said, which has an effect on their cost of capital that we need to acknowledge. However, I agree with the Opposition that if the energy companies are somehow keeping prices high in anticipation of a freeze, that is completely unacceptable. That is prima facie evidence that the market does not work. If that is happening, it is unacceptable and will have to be investigated.

What are the Government doing? We know about the competition review. We have talked about tariff simplification, in relation to our reduction of green deal charges. There are nine new entrants. One thing that mystifies me in this whole discussion is that we talk about the big six as an oligopoly and as presenting an issue, given the size of the market. However, in Germany, it is the big three in gas and the big two in electricity; in France, it is the big one or the big three; and even in Ireland, it is the big five. On the face of it, the problem is not one of market structure, but of other issues that we need to investigate.

The big issue we face is about why the market acts so stickily, why people do not transfer and why the feather comes down so slowly. It is clear that switching does not work as well as it should—it works better in the retail petrol market—and the industry plays it wrong because it likes the feather effect. The industry clearly wants to make money, and the feather works for it. Our job and the market’s job is to find ways of making the feather come down more like a rocket. That will include 24-hour switching, and I think that all such measures will work.

What the Labour party is suggesting—in good faith—will not work. The word “moral” has been used today and there is a tendency to insult the big six, but these guys or some combination of them will have to spend £110 billion over the next decade or so. We have heard about secret deals and cartels, but we should not speak about the issue in that way.

The point must be made that every time we vote in this House on energy prices— this really surprises me—Opposition Members go through the Lobby in favour of more expensive energy. In 2011, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), wanted to reduce the solar PV tariff from six times grid parity to four times grid parity, but the Opposition rejected it. In 2013, they were determined to force through a unilateral carbon target, in spite of the fact that our carbon emissions are among the lowest in Europe; it would cost £130 on every bill. The big date was 4 December 2013, when Opposition Members voted in the Lobby for accelerating the closure of UK power stations over and above what is required by the directive relating to industries with large emissions.

An Opposition who vote in that way are not acting as though they were about to go into government or as though they were a serious party of government. It is reasonable for us and the country to conclude that they have nothing serious to say on the issue.

18:12

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hon. Members from across the House should congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on bringing the issue of energy prices to the forefront of public attention and on placing it at the top of the political agenda. Despite what has been said, he has done so because we face a cost of living crisis. At the centre of that crisis is the inability of millions of people to pay their energy bills because their wages have gone down and they have fewer opportunities—1 million people are on zero-hours contracts—and because prices have gone up.

It is time to bring the big six to account. We can talk about the different ways of doing so, but the Opposition have shown clarity of purpose in saying that we want a freeze and then regulation, and in saying that we are pro-competition. Obviously, since we made our proposals, the Government have scampered around and scratched their head to think of an alternative, but they have just given a rendition of what we are saying.

In any case, we need to take action, and there are more radical approaches with which we could threaten the marketplace. The reality is that we are worried about the difference between the wholesale price and the retail price. Some Labour party members in my area are talking about the case for nationalisation of the retail side, or at least some form of intervention. For example, one of the retailers could become publicly owned in order to enforce price competition on other retailers so that at the end of the day we can have proper, competitive retail prices. I am not advocating that, but hon. Members from across the House should think constructively about ways of getting prices down.

Basically, the Labour party has got the whole debate going. Part of that debate relates to the need for security, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned, and another part is the need for diversity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said.

I want to comment on the Swansea lagoon initiative, which is being pushed as a way to provide wave energy. I have asked questions on the record about how we can balance what is best for our environment locally and nationally, and what is best for our economy locally and nationally. I have raised concerns about sewage outfall into the lagoon, the impact on the Gower beaches, the possibility of toxic waste being dug up, and the impact on tourism and the iconic view. Tidal Lagoon has come back with changes in its plans. Welsh Water has said that it wants the sewage to go outside the lagoon, and that may now happen. The company has come back on the concerns that I had about the concrete rock armour. It has now sourced denser granite to ensure that there will be natural rock armour, which will look better.

It started off as a green power station six times the size of Cardiff bay, stuck in Swansea bay, that had no benefits for Swansea in terms of energy costs and that might have undermined the tourism industry. The company has come back and provided a visitor centre and suggested berthing for cruise liners, which might help us to take advantage of the momentum from the Dylan Thomas centenary and our ambitions from the city of culture bid. In that way, the green offer might be combined with a tourism offer and an economic offer, and, hopefully, with sustainable energy prices, which is what this debate is all about.

I have been concerned, as colleagues will know, about sand movements and the muddying of the golden beaches of Swansea and Gower. A lot more work needs to be done by the Planning Inspectorate on contamination, waste and the carbon impact of the project. I am glad that it has taken the matter on and I will support whatever decision the jury reaches.

I make that point because we need to think about diversity of supply. There are issues with fracking, which some people are very concerned about. The Welsh Affairs Committee recently produced a report on fracking. Although we were cautiously optimistic, it is important that we focus on issues such as how contaminated water will be treated and disposed of, and the environmental risks in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

It is difficult to balance the environmental and economic issues. Although we all like to see robust exchanges across the Chamber, it is important that we have a greener, more secure and increasingly cost-effective solution to meeting our energy needs. That is why I welcome this debate. I hope that we see progress and action sooner rather than later on getting the cost of people’s bills down.

18:17

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius. I know that I do not have to translate those words for your benefit, Mr Speaker, nor for the beneficiaries of comprehensive education in good Catholic authorities or the papal knights on the Opposition Benches, but perhaps I should explain for the victims of the public school system on the Government Benches that those words, which came into my mind while the Secretary of State was speaking, of course mean: “Those whom the gods intend to destroy, they first make mad.”

The Secretary of State went to great lengths to shut me up. I tried with great difficulty to intervene on him, but he chose seven others and left me speechless. What terrible things can I have been saying that have alarmed him so much? I should perhaps warn my friends on the Opposition Front Bench that what I say might cause a little trauma to them. It might be a good idea, if they want one, to go out and have a cup of tea.

I wish to make a very simple point about the future cost of electricity. Incredibly, and almost without public controversy, we have done an extraordinary deal with money from China that will not do much for our energy security. We have done another deal with a corporation from France. Those are the countries that we will depend on for our energy security in future. That was the process for deciding on the Hinkley Point C power station.

The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is now the Secretary of State, explained to his constituents in 2009 that he was against any nuclear power stations because they would cost taxpayers and consumers billions of pounds. I wonder if that is what he was afraid I would say. I am sure that his constituents would love to know, when they voted for him thinking that they would get a nuclear-free future, why they now find—possibly because of the lure of the red box—that he has changed his mind. I would like to know why, and perhaps he can explain that. The Liberal Democrat party is in a sorry state, and the gods are certainly sending a message, in the European elections and elsewhere, about its imminent extinction in the political fold. It is about time he forgot the lure of high office and returned to his anti-nuclear roots.

The European Commission is looking at Hinkley Point, and I hope that the Commission will do the right thing and say that the £17.6 billion subsidy that the power station receives puts it wildly in conflict with competition rules. For those of us with long memories—one can forget about things after four years—the Liberal Democrats agreed in 2010 that there would be no subsidies on nuclear power. I suppose that £17.6 billion is a trivial matter that is not worth considering.

We have got into an extraordinary deal whereby we have agreed to pay EDF £92.50 per MWh, which is three times what it charges its French customers and twice the going rate for electricity. Not only that, but we have guaranteed that price for the next 35 years. It is scarcely believable. We have even paid to insure EDF against any potential reduction in prices. The deal is wonderful for the French, and French newspapers have praised it, saying that it would mean 15,000 new jobs—not in Britain, but in France. No explanation for the situation has ever come forward. The Government are closing their eyes and hoping that they can just carry on.

What is the story of the success of nuclear power in recent years in Europe? Two new power stations have been built. One, in Finland, should have been generating electricity in 2009, so it is five years late and €4 billion over budget. The other, at Flamanville in Northern France, is in a similar state. There is an atrocious record of nuclear power that is never delivered on time or on budget.

We also have the chilling lesson of Fukushima, which is where we come into really serious money. The compensation that is thought to have been paid for Fukushima is £250 billion. In addition, as the Germans and many other European countries have realised, the anxiety that is created by being a neighbour to a nuclear power station is simply not worth it.

I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said about proceeding with the tide as a power source—an immense cliff of water that goes up and down the Severn estuary twice a day—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

18:23

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The reality of what we have been discussing has been distorted slightly by the Secretary of State. I am disappointed in him, and I am glad that he is here to hear me say so, because in many other respects regarding energy security I hold him in high regard. I have to say, however, that his trivialisation of the problem that so many families face is shameful coming from a Liberal. I would have expected such a thing from a high Tory who has so much money that he never meets real people and who has his staff deal with his problems, but from the Secretary of State it is too much to bear.

Given that a year ago the DECC Committee produced a report on energy prices, profits and poverty, those are the issues that he should have addressed. He should have indicated in some way how the Government had taken stock of what was said in that report. The changes that have happened since mean that the situation has got worse, not better, for ordinary families.

The wholesale price of gas has come down. All the analysis from the economists shows that 50% of energy bills comes from wholesale prices. Gas prices have fallen by 38% and electricity prices by 23%, yet energy prices have gone up by 10% on average. In the past year, energy companies’ profit margins are up by 21% for single tariffs and more for dual tariffs. This cannot be denied. These are the things that the Labour party wants to address by saying to the companies, “No, you are not too big to control.” Just as the banks are considered to be too big to fail, the energy companies are considered to be too big to control. Government Members have said that to do so threatens the future because they will not be able to afford to invest. I am an economist, and my understanding of investment is that it means calculating the net present value as at today to work out what will have to be raised in income to cover future investments, building in some profit margin. It does not mean taking the profits now—trousering them and giving them to shareholders in such a way that shareholder value is boosted but no income is put away for future investments. That is what is supposed to happen but it is not happening in the energy market because profits are seen as a cash cow for short-term use.

Families in my constituency and in Falkirk district and West Lothian may not face some of the big, dire problems that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) described. Yesterday I saw a chart showing that in those areas of Scotland there is over 25% unemployment among young people. The unemployment level in my area is lower, but there are still a lot of families facing real poverty. Bills have risen by an average of £300 per year, but what is more important is the affordability gap. Analysis shows that the real income for families across these constituencies and in most of the UK has fallen by £1,600, while the energy affordability gap has gone up. It is not £300 but £480 for the average family in my constituency and across the UK. The people in part-time, short-term, low-guaranteed-hours work who are called the new employed are in fact the new benefit-dependent working poor. People are sanctioned as they struggle to find work and to cope with the devices used to get people off benefits on the basis that they are no longer seeking employment. They are no longer in employment; they are sanctioned and out of employment. That is what people are facing and what the Government should have addressed.

The root cause of the problem is partly the structure of the industry and partly the behaviour of the energy companies, which Ofgem has tried to police. I have been looking at some of the facts. SSE got a £750,000 fine for not providing connections properly. Scottish Power got a £700,000 fine for not giving the right price difference and payment type. Npower got a £125,000 fine. There was a £12 million fine for E.ON, which persisted in mis-selling between 2010 and 2013. The companies are reacting by trying to bully this Government and frighten a future incoming Government. For example, SSE announced that it would freeze energy prices at least until 2016 and legally separate its retail and wholesale businesses. Those ideas were put forward as options to be looked at seriously when we have the price freeze. On the same day, it announced that it would withdraw from five out of six wind farms and reduce its investment in renewables from £7.2 billion to £2 billion-£3 billion. This happens because these companies think they are so powerful that we cannot control them, and the Government have been so supine in their attitude to them that they are getting away with it.

The real problem is the structure of the industry. Calor Gas in my constituency, which distributes to the whole of Scotland from Grangemouth, says that trading alone trebles the price it has to pay for its own gas to supply to the people who need it, particularly in rural areas where people do not have the option of anything else. The vertical integration of the industry means that it can hide its profits and put costs in one section and not another. These companies have to be broken up, they have to be taken on, and, if need be, they have to be controlled. I have no fear of that from the perspective of the consumer.

18:29

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

I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate. I commend the tenacity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). She is absolutely right to push this issue time and again. Only last week, it was revealed that gas prices for next-day delivery had reached their lowest level since September 2010. Likewise, electricity prices are at their lowest level since April 2010. Of course, none of that benefit has been passed on to consumers, which is precisely the issue under discussion.

The Secretary of State admits that rocket and feather is happening and chuntered in passing that it should have been looked at a long time ago. If he was in the Chamber, I would politely remind him that the Government have been in office for more than four years. I am not interested in what happened in the past—they have had four years not only to look at this issue, but, more importantly, to act on it. The fact is that they have failed, which is why my right hon. Friend is right to keep coming back to the House to highlight the issue of the broken market, which is not working in the interest of consumers. Profit margins have been increasing, yet fuel poverty is on the rise, so much so that many of my constituents and those of hon. and right hon. Members throughout the Chamber are living in fear of putting on their heating as energy costs rise.

Ministers laughed during an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), but he raised a serious issue. The annual fuel poverty statistics report, which was published last week, projects that the number of those living in fuel poverty is likely to increase to 2.33 million. That is greater than the population of Northern Ireland and about the same as that of west Yorkshire. It leaves a stain on our country, whichever part we live in, that so many people are affected.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

May I just point out, for the record, that under this coalition fuel poverty has fallen in real terms in each of the past three years? That did not happen during the last Parliament, when it went up year on year. The figure the hon. Gentleman refers to is a projection. There was a projected rise last year, but we actually delivered a cut. There is much more to do on fuel poverty, but using misleading figures will not help his case.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Minister can change definitions, but he cannot change the fact that more people are living in fuel poverty on his watch.

I commend the work of Labour in local government. We have heard about some of the issues involved in switching and I commend the work of Greater Manchester’s energy switching scheme, led by a consortium of the 10 councils across the city region. A couple of other local authorities that are not in Greater Manchester have also joined in. Not only is the consortium using its buying power for the benefit of the public purse of the local authorities, it is also allowing the citizens to register. The registration take-up in Manchester has been about 10% and the average savings to my constituents have been about £108, or £124 for dual fuel. That is positive action for the people involved in the scheme, but it is not an answer in itself. We need something far more fundamental.

The case for change has been put so well by my right hon. Friends the Member for Don Valley and the Leader of the Opposition. We are right to keep pushing the Government to move on these issues. My constituents are not in a position to wait for action. That is why the price freeze, attractive though it is, is not an end in itself. Government Members do not seem to understand that. This is absolutely the time to reset the market. The energy market does not work—you don’t need to be Einstein to work that out. It lacks competition and transparency.

We have already spoken about the big six. I am not bothered about how we got to the big six, but the fact is that 97% of the supply to homes and 70% of the supply from UK power stations comes from the big six. We cannot shop around. That is why companies generating and selling energy to themselves rigs the market and puts up prices even when generation costs fall. That is why it is right to separate generation and supply—as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned, SSE is already in the process of doing that —because only then can transparency prevail. We need to sell energy into a pool because that changes the dynamic of the market and allows access to new suppliers at their costs.

We also need a simpler tariff structure. I was taken by an issue raised by Mr Walker who lives in Denton. He came to my surgery in Dane Bank concerned about his bill from ScottishPower—it certainly bamboozled me—and accused the company of overcharging. He worked in the energy industry and could work out the price per kilowatt, and he was being massively overcharged. He knew how to read his bill because he had worked all his life in that industry and knew it was wrong, but how many of my constituents would be able to make head or tail of such a bill?

We need a stronger watchdog, and I support the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. In the short term we need to freeze bills, certainly to January 2017, which provides my right hon. Friend and her Front-Bench colleagues with time to legislate and introduce the changes we need. That will be a welcome respite for my constituents, who on average will save £120, and businesses in my constituency, which will save £1,800 on average. I urge her to keep on with that because the industry is shifting. That is not because of action by this Government—there has not really been any—but because of pressure from her and the Leader of the Opposition.

These changes cannot come quickly enough. We need to tackle the endemic and growing scourge of fuel poverty, and we need an energy policy that works for consumers and businesses. We need the changes that were set out so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, but sadly I fear we will have to wait another 11 months before we get them.

18:37

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Many people in Northern Ireland, who face the second highest fuel bills in Europe—behind only Italy—and where 42% of the population experience fuel poverty and there is very little competition in the market, will be disappointed by the Secretary of State’s response to this debate.

My natural instinct is not to intervene in markets, but Government Members’ touching faith in markets is not founded in fact. We do not have an unhampered energy market in the United Kingdom. As has been said time and again, 96% of the market is dominated by six companies—that is far higher in Northern Ireland where there are really only two companies. We have an integrated structure that does not allow competition between those who supply wholesale energy and retailers, and a complicated pricing structure that is not understood by the vast majority of consumers. Indeed, as hon. Members have pointed out, the very consumers whom we want to understand that pricing structure are those who cannot understand it or do not have the ability to switch supplier. In Northern Ireland only 2.6% of people switch companies on a year-on-year basis, and there is a need for regulation.

Of course, there is opposition to regulation, and we have had numerous references to Ofgem. Regulation already exists so let us not have a kind of purist view that we cannot have regulation. The other, rather niggling point that was made by the Minister is that if we are going to regulate, what price will it be? Will it be the spot price, the monthly price or the long-term price? We know what the problem is: over time, the price of wholesale energy falls, but that is not passed on to the consumer. A mechanism to regulate that is at least right in principle, so let us not dispense with it by niggling about which price we use.

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

My hon. Friend talks about the lack of competition in Northern Ireland. When wholesale prices come down, they are very seldom—or very slowly—passed on to the consumer.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the whole point of this debate: should we have regulation to ensure that that is not allowed to happen? We cannot rely on competition, because despite the increased competition that Ministers have boasted about, the practice still goes on. In fact, it does not just go on: it seems to have been reinforced at a time when competition has emerged in the market. Reluctantly, therefore, we have to say that in the absence of a market that is unhampered or is properly functioning, we need some way to control how energy companies use their market power in the face of the fuel poverty that some domestic consumers experience. The impact is also felt by industry in the UK and affects its competitiveness.

One issue that has not been touched on much in the debate, although the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned it, is the aspect of energy policy and prices over which the House has some control—the increasing reliance on renewable energy. I notice that the Secretary of State boasted that we are the best place in the world for onshore and offshore wind power, but his boast is paid for by our consumers. According to his Department, in 2013 electricity prices were 17% higher as a result of feed-in tariffs, carbon taxes, smart meters, additional infrastructure costs and so on. By 2020, those factors will add 33% to electricity prices. Some Members, such as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), suggested that we should have more renewables, but more of that sort of policy will add to the cost of household bills.

We need to regulate the current big suppliers of electricity, but we also need to ask ourselves some hard questions about the kinds of energy policies that are regularly promoted because it is politically correct to do so. In some areas, it is the popular thing to do, but the cost has not always been fully transparent. If we are talking about getting transparency from the energy companies, let us be sure that we are transparent about the policies that we espouse. The hard-pressed consumer deserves that at least.

18:43

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

We have had another interesting debate on the energy market—an issue that is high on the agenda of Members on both sides of the House and of people throughout the country. By now, that should not be a surprise to the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues.

The crisis of public confidence and deficit of trust that exists among consumers and bill-payers has now reached a level that cannot simply be dismissed, as the Secretary of State attempted to do in earlier debates on this and related issues. That has been well illustrated by two developments in the last eight days. First, wholesale energy costs are at a four-year low, and secondly—it was announced just today—complaints about energy suppliers are at record levels, with more than 1 million complaints in the first quarter of 2014. That is only those individuals who have made a complaint, and we all know from our surveys and casework that many of our constituents are very concerned about the energy companies and view the sector with a level of disdain and distrust that should concern all of us.

These debates seem to follow a familiar pattern. The Secretary of State is nothing if not predictable: another lengthy contribution that was staggeringly irrelevant to the motion and the subject of the debate. He repeatedly referred to his predecessor, but seemed to forget that his predecessor was in his party and in his Government. I understand why they perhaps do not wish to dwell on his predecessor’s lot, but the House should be reminded of the fact that his predecessor said that the energy market had all the characteristics of a cartel and refused, in 2011, to make a reference to the competition authorities when pressed to do so.

The Secretary of State referred to price increases. We should be aware that under the previous Labour Government prices increased by £19. In the three and a bit years for which we have records under this Government, prices went up by £69. That is the reality of the difference of scale and scope of energy price increases over that time.

We have had a number of contributions this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) is a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee. He reminded the House of the lack of transparency in the market and what he has encountered as a member of the Select Committee when seeking to get to the bottom of the issues.

The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), a less frequent contributor to our energy debates than some who have spoken this afternoon, said that he thought it snowed almost as often in the part of east Lancashire that he represents as it does in Glasgow. My constituency is close to Glasgow. We did not have snow this year, but I have many constituents, as do many others, who are struggling to pay their bills. They see wholesale prices coming down, but their bills do not follow. He referred, as did the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), to off-grid consumers. I am sure he will welcome our proposals to ensure the off-grid market is properly brought within the remit of the regulator.

The hon. Member for Angus has been persistent in pursuing the case for winter fuel payments to be paid at the start of the winter for off-grid customers, so they can purchase their fuel when it is cheaper. I endorse that wholeheartedly. He also made a point about hedging strategies and how they seem to have very little, if any, benefit to consumers. They seem to be an excuse, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) set out at the start of the debate.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made an interesting contribution with a view on market economics that, frankly, I expect from him. I am not sure how many of his constituents would necessarily agree with him that these issues are best left to the market and that regulation is not important to their energy supplies.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), in her six minutes, reminded the House of the impact on her constituents of high bills, on the back of lower wholesale costs. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) contributes frequently to these debates. I neglected to mention him last time, so I am mentioning him today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) highlighted the Secretary of State’s boast of having reduced policy cost by moving some of it to general taxation. As she rightly said, however, 3.7 million consumers on fixed deals with all of the big six companies have not had that saving passed on to them. It is exactly that type of behaviour, attitude and agenda that contributes to the level of mistrust that exists with energy companies, and why the Government need to get to grips with it.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) exposed some of the cant on some of the issues around numbers. He is absolutely right to make the point that the rules of the game and of the market are much more significant than the number of operators. We need to ensure transparency in the market. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that if tacit collusion is currently happening, the Government should tackle it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) got a lot into his six minutes. He reiterated the points on the lack of a transparent relationship between the retail and generation parts of the energy sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) reminded me why I attend mass less frequently than I perhaps used to. I am afraid his first few words distracted me from the rest of his speech, so I am unable to comment on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) rightly said that the debate is sometimes trivialised and added that this serious issue affects his constituents and constituents across the whole country. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made the important point that the issue is not just about a freeze and a cap on prices, but reforming the market so it works in the interests of consumers and users.

We have had another debate that has highlighted the level of mistrust, a crisis of confidence and issues that need to be addressed. We know that there is huge dissatisfaction with the energy sector and the energy companies among consumers and constituents. That is not good for consumers or the energy sector and needs to be addressed. The Government have an opportunity to do so today by supporting the motion. The Secretary of State is probably within 11 months of the end of his time in office. If he wants to leave office with a reputation for more than complacency and denial, he will join Opposition Members in the Lobby to address the deficit of trust, tackle the crisis of consumer confidence and begin the process of giving customers a fair deal for their energy prices. That is entirely and exactly what the House should do this evening.

18:50

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

This has been a welcome opportunity to debate yet again one of the biggest questions in British politics today, and there have been lively contributions from both sides of the Chamber. Energy bills are at the forefront of everybody’s minds, and the coalition is acutely aware of the impact that a combined heating and electricity bill can have on a family budget. That is why, unlike the 13 long years of Labour drift, dither and dawdling, and ducking a referral to the competition authorities, the four years of the coalition have been characterised by reform, grip and clear direction, with energy consumers at the heart of our agenda. We have passed two Acts in four years and carried out the biggest market reform since privatisation, and a determination from the very top to get a better deal for consumers has translated into action to drive down bills, promote choice, spur innovation and increase competition.

Unfortunately, the Labour Opposition seem to believe that they can make up for the Labour Government’s pitiful lack of action to help customers and total failure to reform the energy market successfully during their period of office by advocating a series of ill-thought-through soundbites and poorly conceived policies that would take the British energy sector crashing straight back to the 1970s. That goes to the heart of the debate on the future of the energy market and the debate that has been rehearsed in the Chamber today.

Do we go forward to a world of empowered consumers, of customers exercising greater choice, of driving healthy competition and of reaping the rewards of market innovation and new technology, or do we retreat three decades, and go back with Labour to a world where the energy sector is entirely run from Whitehall, where prices are set by bureaucrats, where innovation is choked off by regulation and where investors are driven away by reams of anti-business legislation?

At a stroke, Labour’s arbitrary proposals to impose 1970s-style price controls would torch the investment we so desperately need. It would hobble consumer choice and put the clock back decades. Labour’s energy policy is pure British Leyland economics, from the most left-wing Opposition since Michael Foot—[Laughter.] Labour Members can laugh, but Labour’s ham-fisted price controls would create the single-biggest barrier to new entrants and innovation since the industry was denationalised.

The fact is that many Labour Members know that Labour’s policies could not work and are based on nothing more than a shallow soundbite. Like the British public, Labour Members know that the price freeze is a cruel gimmick and a price con. In private, many on the Labour Benches will say exactly that. Rather than help consumers get a better deal, Labour’s price controls would drive up barriers to entry and lock in the big six, created when Labour was last in government. In fact, if Labour Members get their way, I would not be surprised if the big six decided not to stick it out. If Labour wins, Labour’s big six could become the big five or even the big four. Far from being a fix for a broken market, Labour’s prescription is the very antidote to competition.

[Caroline Flint]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in September 2009? Commenting about the fact that reductions in wholesale prices are not passed on to consumers, he said, “The first thing you’ve got to do is give the regulator the teeth to order that those reductions are made and that is what we would do.” Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with what his Prime Minister said in 2009?

[Gregory Barker]

I make it a policy always to agree with my Prime Minister. I can tell the right hon. Lady what we said in 2009: we called for a competition inquiry. I can also tell her what the current Leader of the Opposition did: he declined it. He ducked it—he was frit. When he was in power, standing at this Dispatch Box, he sang the tune of the big six and ducked a competition inquiry. The British people have had to wait for the coalition for a comprehensive assessment by the competition authorities.

In contrast to Labour’s lurch back to the 1970s, the coalition wants to unleash disruptive new entrants and the exciting new breed of energy entrepreneurs. We do not want to lock in Labour’s big six; we want to replace them with the big 60,000, unleashing British entrepreneurial spirit. In addition, huge steps forward in consumer-friendly technology, coupled with our smart meter roll-out programme, mean that we could be on the threshold of an exciting age of far more empowered consumers and a decentralised energy sector, with a proliferation of new, young companies vying for consumers.

However, the Government do not pretend either that there is not much more to do or that we cannot improve the market further. There is indeed more to be done. Our job is by no means finished. As the Secretary of State clearly pointed out in reply to the opening of the debate, the Leader of the Opposition may have been in denial about the behaviour of the energy companies, failing to pass on falls in the wholesale gas price while he was in office, but we are not. A sensible, objective, dispassionate and thorough investigation by the independent Competition and Markets Authority is the way to get to the bottom of whether customers are being short-changed by energy companies.

Objectively policed and well regulated markets serve the best interests of consumers and deliver substantially and sustainably lower prices, not a return to the failed economic models of the 1970s. That is the nub of the choice before the electorate: break the grip of the big six by unleashing unprecedented competition and innovation, ripping down barriers to entry and unleashing a robust and thorough market investigation; or go the Labour way, suffocating the industry with red tape, driving away competition, snuffing out the challenge from the new entrants, torching investment and wasting valuable years creating yet another Labour quango. It is a pretty simple choice: the future or the past?

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) was clear: we choose the future. He was right to point out that fuel poverty doubled in the last Parliament, when Labour was in office, between 2005 and 2010. He put himself firmly on the side of disruptive new entrants such as Ovo and ambitious 24-hour switching. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) was right to point out that the big six were Labour’s creation. Every time the Leader of the Opposition opines on energy, he drives up the cost of capital, and it is consumers who pay the price.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) made a thoughtful and well informed contribution, like his previous contributions. Sadly, we have to conclude, like him, that Labour has nothing serious to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) comprehensively demolished the Opposition policy. He is absolutely right to point out that price controls stifle investment and kill competition.

As for Opposition Members, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made a rather ideological speech about nuclear power, which contrasts with the pragmatic and considered investment in our nuclear programme announced today by China. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) made a rather sanctimonious speech, but the policies he supports would actually hit the people he professes to help and result in fuel poverty soaring, just as it did during the last Parliament. He is also in denial about the progress we are making. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) might be sincere in her beliefs, but she is in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to investment. Under the coalition, investment in renewables has gone up sharply. In this Parliament, average annual investment in renewables is up to nearly £7 billion per annum, compared with £3 billion per annum in the last Parliament.

The fact is that the coalition has a plan. We have a long-term economic plan and, what is more, we are delivering for British consumers. The Labour party, by contrast, has not got a clue, and it is British consumers who are paying the price.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

19:00

Division 11

Ayes: 228

---

Labour: 216
Scottish National Party: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 283

---

Conservative: 238
Liberal Democrat: 44

Rushden Lakes and Skew Bridge (Planning)

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

19:12

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

First, I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me tonight’s Adjournment debate on the Rushden Lakes and Skew bridge planning application. This is the most important issue that has affected my constituency in the nine years that I have had the great privilege and honour of representing the people of Wellingborough and Rushden.

I am also delighted that we have on the Treasury Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is of course the Minister for planning. My hon. Friend is rightly regarded as one of the most radical and innovative thinkers on the Government Benches, and while I do not always agree with him, more times than not I do. He is certainly prepared to make people think and to challenge the status quo. What is more remarkable is that he has been able to continue to do this while he has been a Government Minister. I also want to thank Eliza Richardson and Harriet Pentland for their help with the preparation of this speech.

Tonight’s Adjournment debate is unusual: it is not one of those debates that slams the Government for not doing something, claims that they are not listening, or demands that they spend more taxpayers’ money. It is a joyous occasion: a celebration of localism working. It is a celebration of a Conservative-led campaign that has succeeded; and it is a celebration of part of my constituency being transformed.

Rushden Lakes and Skew bridge was a major planning application in the east Northamptonshire part of my constituency. The site lies to the west of Rushden, within the River Nene valley, with the river and gravel pit lakes as its northern boundary and the A45 as its southern boundary. The size and nature of the application meant that it was called in by the Department for Communities and Local Government. That resulted in a public inquiry, which was held on 25 to 28 June, 2 to 5 July and 9 to 12 July 2013. The planning inspector reported on 14 November 2013.

The hybrid planning application comprised a full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive-through restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitors centre, restaurants, boathouse, together with proposals for access and an entire outline application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved; plus the removal of a ski slope and associated levelling, landscaping, habitat management and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop.

I am pleased to say that at 9.30 on Thursday 12 June, the Secretary of State approved the application. That is tremendous news for my constituents. Rushden Lakes will benefit not only Wellingborough and Rushden but the whole of Northamptonshire.

The delivery of Rushden Lakes is clear evidence that our long-term economic plan is working not only for the country, but for Wellingborough and Rushden. It shows that a Conservative Government, a Conservative MP, a first-class Conservative candidate in Corby and east Northamptonshire and local councillors and Conservative activists all working together have delivered a massive investment in east Northamptonshire.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

I do not intend to give way in this debate because of the amount of issues that I want to cover tonight.

Contrast that with 13 years of Labour when we did not see any investment in east Northamptonshire; we just saw public services shut down. This development will bring 2,000 permanent new jobs to the area alongside fantastic new retail, tourist and leisure facilities, including a leisure club and a hotel as well as many retail units.

There are also plans for: a wildlife and recreational area with facilities for bird watching, cycling and boating; waterfront restaurants; a hotel and crèche; a lakeside visitors centre; and a home and garden centre.

It is fantastic to see the potential of a previously unused, brownfield site that has sadly fallen into disrepair finally being unlocked and developed for locals and tourists to enjoy. Not only will they have a fantastic range of shops on their doorsteps, but they will be able to make the most of the River Nene and the wildlife that the area has to offer.

Too often, Rushden has been overlooked for investment. That was particularly true during the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. This development marks a new beginning for Rushden and the surrounding area. Rushden Lakes will serve to bolster further the local economy’s already growing employment rate. Official figures show that unemployment has fallen dramatically in north Northamptonshire over the past 12 months. In Kettering, unemployment fell last month from 2,269 to 1,590—a drop of 679 or 30%.

In Corby, unemployment is 1,868 compared with 2,754 a year ago—a fall of approximately a third—which means that 886 families now have a breadwinner.

[Andy Sawford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Bone]

I am not giving way tonight.

In Wellingborough, the figures are even better. There are 1,904 people unemployed compared with 3,003 a year ago, which means that 1,099 people have gained work, with a drop in unemployment of well over a third. The three constituencies of Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough will benefit even more from the 2,000 jobs that will be created by Rushden Lakes. The Prime Minister’s long-term economic plan is clearly working in our community.

Rushden Lakes is a development that has overwhelming local support, and it is one of the biggest issues on the doorstep in my constituency. It is a key part of the joint listening campaign that I run in Wellingborough and Rushden, along with Tom Pursglove, the Conservative party’s superb parliamentary candidate for Corby and east Northants. The philosophy behind that campaign is quite simple. Instead of politicians telling local people what they should care about and what they should think, the reverse is the case. I in Wellingborough and Rushden and Tom in Corby and east Northants, spend a great deal—

[Andy Sawford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He continually refers to my constituency.

[Mr Bone]

I am not giving way. I will tell the hon. Gentleman this: he should be at Kettering hospital getting the splinters taken out of his backside for sitting on the fence for so long over this matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Hon. Members must be careful to temper the language that they use about each other. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) does not wish to give way, that is his choice. However frustrated the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) might feel, we must abide by the rules of the House. I hope that we can temper the heat in the Chamber at the moment.

[Mr Bone]

I apologise entirely, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am so annoyed by the appalling point of order yesterday for which I expect an apology.

I in Wellingborough and Rushden and Tom in Corby and east Northants spend a great deal of our time knocking on doors, attending meetings and sending out surveys to find out what local people are thinking about and concerned about. Once we have established which issues concern people in our community, we then campaign on them. Rushden Lakes was clearly a project that had overwhelming support, and it became a major part of our joint listening campaign. As long ago as the autumn of 2012, it has featured heavily in the campaign. In the Corby parliamentary by-election, with our excellent candidate Christine Emmett supporting the campaign and Tom Pursglove co-ordinating the day-to-day running of the project, Skew Bridge and Rushden Lakes became a major issue.

It is laughable that, Labour-controlled Corby council having opposed the development, Labour is now trying to take credit for a Conservative project, devised by a Conservative council, supported by a Conservative MP, campaigned for by a Conservative parliamentary candidate, and approved by a Conservative-led Government—to put it bluntly, Labour had absolutely nothing to do with the success of Rushden Lakes—and all that in spite of Labour trying to block investment and growth in the area.

The Labour leader of Corby council, Councillor Tom Beattie, has long been opposed to the development that my area so badly needs. Amazingly, on hearing the announcement, he described the news as “disappointing”, going on to say that he was

“disappointed for the traders and disappointed for the people who live in Corby”.

It is extraordinary for local Labour politicians to want to deprive the people of north Northamptonshire of much needed local investment and facilities. Extraordinary, yes; surprising, no. Sadly, this reaction is typical of Labour’s ingrained anti-business and anti-growth attitude. Thank goodness common sense and localism have prevailed.

I have campaigned locally and in Parliament to give Rushden Lakes the green light. On 29 November 2012, I delivered a petition to Parliament in support of the development, with the best part of 1,000 signatures. I have never known such a popular planning proposal in my nine years of representing Wellingborough and Rushden. In fact, the Library of the House of Commons told me that this was the second most popular planning application. In other words, when there is a planning application, most people write in to oppose it; in the case of Rushden Lakes, vast numbers of people wrote in to support it.

I have asked many written and oral parliamentary questions on this issue to the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Minister with responsibility for employment, as well as writing to the Planning Inspectorate. In addition, I spoke at the planning inquiry.

The fight to get Rushden Lakes under way would not have been possible without the unwavering support of all the local campaigners. There are some notable individuals who deserve a special mention for all that they have done to get the planning proposals through. There are so many to mention that I will undoubtedly miss out some key players, but they will know who they are and the excellent work that they have done. We had a most remarkable response to the campaign.

I start by thanking Councillors David and Barbara Jenney. David as my association chairman and Barbara through her personal efforts have been a great source of advice and help. I also thank Councillors Gill and Andy Mercer, who are the backbone of all the hard-working Conservative campaigning activity in Rushden, Councillor Steven North, leader of East Northamptonshire council, who had the foresight and drive to push Rushden Lakes through the local planning phase and Councillor Paul Bell, leader of Wellingborough council, for his foresight in realising that this development would be of great benefit to Wellingborough as well as Rushden.

I thank Jon McCarthy, the project lead at LXB, and Gary Wilburn, the architect and branding specialist of Rushden Lakes; the leader of Rushden town council, Councillor Sarah Peacock, for putting the town council’s support firmly behind the project; and Colin Burnett, expert retail planner at LXB. Special thanks are due to the chief executive of East Northamptonshire council, David Oliver, who put so much hard work into the project, much of it behind the scenes, over and above what he had to do. I thank Gavin Stollar, for helping project manage; Councillor Robin Underwood for his tenacity and unswerving support; Councillors David and Wendy Brackenbury for their huge practical and moral support; Peter Atchinson as chairman of Corby and East Northamptonshire Conservative Association, for throwing the association’s weight behind the project; and Helen Howell and Peter Wathan, for all their support in East Northants.

There are so many unsung heroes, but let me pick out a few—John and Sheila Vickers and Bill and Molly Clifton for delivering so many leaflets; Pam and George Whiting for all their efforts in Higham Ferrers; Councillor Jack Spriggs for all his enthusiasm and help; and Helen Harrison for being such an important part of the listening campaign. Particular thanks go to Councillor Richard Lewis for his unswerving determination to achieve Rushden Lakes and for his continuous pressure to see the project delivered, Councillor Rob Gough, Brian Skittral and Ollie Lewis, indispensable members of the listening team, and John Campbell, chief executive of Wellingborough council, for their help and support. I thank Christine Emmett, the former Conservative candidate for Corby for all her help.

The list goes on and includes the Northamptonshire Telegraph for its campaigning in achieving Rushden Lakes, showing what an excellent local paper can do on behalf of its community, the Northamptonshire Herald and Post, BBC Radio Northampton, BBC Look East and ITV Anglia for their support and coverage of Rushden Lakes.

Special thanks go to Helen Danzig and the Yes to Rushden Lakes campaign team, whose efforts and support were an essential part of this victory. That is a non-party political organisation with the sole aim of delivering this fantastic development to the people of Northamptonshire. Their tireless efforts have paid off and I know they are thrilled with the decision for Rushden Lakes to go ahead.

However, I want to single out one person in particular for his hard work, enthusiasm and dedication in delivering the listening campaign. I refer, of course, to Councillor Tom Pursglove, a Wellingborough councillor who, with me, headed the joint listening campaign. He campaigned tirelessly on this issue, as he has done on so many others. Tom is a prolific campaigner and he is now the Conservative candidate for Corby and East Northants. The people of Corby and East Northants could not wish for a better candidate. He has shown that he listened, campaigned and delivered on Rushden Lakes.

Finally, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for giving permission for this development. I know that it was a long, hard, well thought out decision, and all the legal ramifications were taken into account. I know that off his own bat he looked at the site personally. The development will transform Rushden and the surrounding areas and I look forward to welcoming my right hon. Friend back to my constituency once this fantastic project is completed.

But I am not complacent. Now is the time to look to the future. The joint core strategy review for north Northamptonshire was held up until the Rushden Lakes decision was made. Now that Rushden Lakes has been approved, this review can go ahead. The importance of this for Rushden is that Rushden and the surrounding towns do not have a local plan. The most recent local plan was drawn up in 1996. However, we could not even start the plan until Rushden Lakes had been decided, because our local plan had to be compatible with the joint core strategy, which was held up.

Now that Rushden Lakes has been decided, we can get on with projects such as Rushden East, which is a plan to build at least 2,000 homes, and employment land for at least as many jobs, on the land east of Rushden. There are yet no formal plans as such, but the work on including it in the local plan has already started, a project board has been set up and Conservative-run East Northamptonshire council has already employed professionals to do some basic land studies.

Now that Rushden Lakes has been given the green light, Rushden East can proceed. It will first have to go into the new local plan, but then it can go ahead. Rushden Lakes is therefore the key to unlocking development that had been stalled until the decision was made. Now that it has been decided, we can get on with building more homes, as the Government need us to do in order to grow the economy and solve the housing shortage. It is now more essential than ever that the dualling of the A45 and the improvements to the Chowns Mill roundabout go ahead and that the infrastructure to support the development gets underway as soon as possible.

I have only one question for the Minister: how can we speed up the planning process for such popular developments? Let me explain the issue to him as I see it. The Rushden Lakes scheme was hugely popular. It had the approval of all the local councils and the overwhelming majority of local people. It was on a brownfield site. It meant investment and new jobs. It was delayed for quite a long time because it had to go through the planning process. It seems to me that all that happened over the past year or so is that we made a lot of wealthy barristers and solicitors even more wealthy. When we look at the inspector’s report, we see how firmly it comes down in favour of the development.

I just wonder, in relation to future projects, whether taxpayers’ money could be saved. Would it be possible to change the law so that developments that enjoy such overwhelming support can in future be subject to a local referendum? If 75% or more of local people voted for them, they could then proceed and we would not need to waste any taxpayers’ money. I hope that that idea will feature in some of the Minister’s radical thinking that I referred to at the start of the debate.

The main message that we can take away from tonight’s debate is that we listened, we campaigned and we delivered.

19:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) not only on securing a debate on this issue, which I know is of overwhelming importance to him, his constituents and residents in the broader region, but on his unrelenting campaign, as a Member of Parliament quite properly representing his constituents, in favour of a development that he felt would benefit them dramatically. I congratulate him, along with the many other campaigners who worked so tirelessly, on securing the result he sought. The Secretary of State and I certainly received a great many letters and other representations from people who were in favour of the scheme.

My hon. Friend will understand why I cannot comment on the particular decision. Although the decision has been issued, it is open to legal challenge for a period, and I do not want to prejudice it in any way. However, I will make some broader comments about similar applications, and respond to the ideas that he raised at the end of his speech.

[Andy Sawford]

It is good of the Minister to give way, and he knows that this scheme is very important for my constituency. Will he confirm that he has received letters of support from me and, indeed, joint letters signed by me and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)? Will he confirm that, on page 150 of the report, the hon. Gentleman is quoted as praising my strong support and as saying that

“members of the Conservative and Labour party are united in support of this proposal”?

All of us with an interest in east Northamptonshire back this application locally, and I hope that we can get it going as soon as possible. I of course welcome the decision.

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to acknowledge that I have received a letter from the hon. Gentleman supporting the scheme. Obviously, the scheme was not universally supported, otherwise it would not have been called in, but I am certainly happy to make that acknowledgment.

I will move on to the broader issues. It is a very happy debate for me when, on behalf of the Secretary of State, I am congratulated on the granting of a major application. It is a welcome but unfamiliar position to be in.

The application was given so much support partly because it is on a brownfield site, as my hon. Friend said. It is very important for everybody in this country to make absolutely the maximum use of our already developed land, so that we can minimise the amount of undeveloped land that needs to be developed. As with brownfield sites across the country—unless they are of very high quality environmentally—putting such a site to new use is an absolutely key priority for this Government.

I have another general point on my hon. Friend’s suggestions on how such decisions could be made more quickly. I hope that he welcomes this Government’s introduction of neighbourhood planning, which for the first time gives people who are not professional planners or elected local councillors the ability to draw up a plan for their neighbourhood. The key point about a neighbourhood plan is that it becomes an adopted plan with statutory force after it has won approval in a referendum.

We have introduced the concept of referendums into the planning process, but it might prove to be a little too radical even for me to use a referendum as the way to decide a particular planning application. The simple reason is that planning decisions are quasi-judicial, as my hon. Friend will know very well. It is very important that quasi-judicial decisions are determined not just by the balance of popular opinion, although that is very important, but by the need to comply with all laws, regulations and policies and to take into account all material considerations. It might be difficult to show that a decision arrived at in a popular vote had taken into account all material considerations, and I am worried that it might make legal challenges more likely.

I am very keen to see a greater use of neighbourhood planning. I hope that the areas that my hon. Friend talked about, which I understand have held back from planning partly because of this application, will look at the possibility of neighbourhood planning to supplement the work being undertaken on the local plan.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of the announcements that were made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Mansion House speech about our determination to make it easier and quicker for more brownfield sites to be brought forward for development. The Government’s proposal is to encourage, incentivise and help local authorities to introduce local development orders on as many brownfield sites as they possibly can, so that an applicant or developer who is willing to build housing on a brownfield site, according to the terms of the local development order, can simply get on and do so, without going through a complex new planning process. That is a big departure and I believe that it will have the support of the whole House, because we all want to see the best possible use made of brownfield sites. I am confident that that is what we will see at Rushden Lakes.

Question put and agreed to.

19:39

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Division 9

Ayes: 269

---

Conservative: 219
Liberal Democrat: 44
Labour: 2
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1

Noes: 217

---

Labour: 196
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Conservative: 5
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Liberal Democrat: 1
Green Party: 1

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18 June 2014

[John Robertson in the Chair]

Washwood Heath Marshalling Yard

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Evennett.)

09:30

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

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, and I am even more pleased that I am not speaking and advancing my case alone. I am enormously grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), and my neighbour in Birmingham, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I am glad that hopefully, a bit later this morning, we will be joined by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and with your permission, Mr Robertson, I also have a few short remarks to make for the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who is recovering from surgery but very much wanted to be here to support the case that I will put to the Minister.

Together, we are a powerful team, and the argument that we want to advance is that all of us are great supporters of High Speed 2. We believe that High Speed 2 could be of huge importance to our country and to our home city of Birmingham, and it is particularly appropriate that the birthplace of the steam engine, Birmingham, is the first place that High Speed 2 will connect to London.

I have been a supporter of High Speed 2 ever since Lord Adonis first presented the plans to Cabinet in around 2009 or 2010. He made his case not only with his customary force and clarity, but with a very keen sense of history; in that first presentation to Cabinet, he reminded us that it was not a new idea, but that it had been around for some time. In fact, I think it was Churchill who anticipated the need for extra capacity and high speed after the second world war, as part of our country’s plans for reconstruction. We have been waiting ever since for concrete plans to be put on the table.

When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2010, negotiating spending reductions across Government, it was particularly impressive that Lord Adonis at the Department for Transport was prepared to make the trade-offs necessary in the DFT budget to present a plan that was not simply a bit of blue-sky thinking, but had an enormous amount of detail behind it and a financial package to go with it. He had thought an awful lot of things through that would be needed to turn ideas into reality. At that stage, however, he was obviously operating at 20,000 feet, so to speak. It was impossible back then to foresee and anticipate every design detail that would be needed in the final plans.

At that stage, no doubt, some imperfect decisions crept into the blueprints. I say that not to criticise, but simply to understand. We are dealing with HS2 Ltd, not with an organisation that has been designed according to some celestial blueprint. It is a human institution, and in all human institutions—even those appended to the Department for Transport—sometimes imperfections creep in. A big imperfection and a big mistake has crept into these plans. That big mistake is the notion that we should destroy a third of the industrial land in the great city of Birmingham and put a marshalling yard on it, just to create a few hundred jobs in a decade’s time at the cost of creating 7,000 jobs in the short term.

With your permission, Mr Robertson, I would like to acquaint the Chamber with a bit of the site’s history. I want to set out its economic potential and then conclude by putting some questions to the Minister. He is a good Minister who knows and is on top of his brief. He understands the background to this debate, and I know that he will provide us with full answers this morning.

The site that we are talking about—a third of the industrial land in the city of Birmingham—is old. It was brought into industrial use as the country passed through the high noon of the Victorian age, towards the end of the 19th century. One of the greatest entrepreneurs in Birmingham’s history, the great Joseph Wright, created what was then called the Metropolitan locomotive works on an enormous site. Over the course of 10 or 20 years, a huge industry was built up, manufacturing locomotives that were shipped all the way around the world. In the 1880s and 1890s, Britain began sending billions of pounds around the world to build the world’s railway systems; many of the locomotives that ran on the new railway tracks in India and other parts of the empire were, as often as not, built in Joseph Wright’s great Metropolitan coachworks.

As the years went by, Joseph Wright was joined by the second great entrepreneur of east Birmingham, Herbert Austin, who founded Morris cars, and who, in the early part of the 20th century, built up the great Nuffield Organisation. In due course, he built the site that was to become the great LDV site next door to the Metropolitan coachworks. At its peak in the 1920s, 4,000 manufacturing workers were employed on the site.

Around that great site in east Birmingham, the last great entrepreneur of east Birmingham—not an industrial entrepreneur, but a civic entrepreneur—C.B. Adderley, the late Lord Norton, laid out the streets of Saltley, and that is the community that we are talking about today. The de-industrialisation of the ’80s and ’90s hit our community very hard. First, what had become Metro Cammell closed down. Then, sadly, despite our best efforts and despite the offer of support at the time from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), LDV finally went into liquidation around the time of the last election. What emerged was a great wasteland in east Birmingham, and partly as a result of the de-industrialisation, in east Birmingham—in my constituency of Hodge Hill, in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), and I am afraid to say, to an extent in Erdington—we have very high and unacceptable levels of unemployment. Indeed, 45% of those who are out of work in the great city of Birmingham are in Ladywood, Hodge Hill and Erdington. There are 10 constituencies in our city, and 45% of the city’s unemployed are in just three of them.

With the liquidation of LDV and the ill-judged liquidation of Advantage West Midlands after the 2010 election, something different became possible. For the first time in literally 100 years, it was possible to stitch back together a site that is the size of 105 football pitches. It is the greatest single site pretty much anywhere in the west midlands. Crucially, it became possible to develop the site holistically and put in place new access routes that were impossible in the past.

In the early part of our discussions with HS2 Ltd, we listened with increasing irritation to the idea that just because one owner of part of the site—St Modwen, which owned the western part of the site—had had planning permission, but was unable to get the site developed, somehow the site was not developable. I hope that that argument does not feature in the Minister’s remarks today. If those pages are in his speech, I hope he rips them out, screws them up and puts them on the floor. They are irrelevant to the argument.

Only when the site came together for the first time in a century was it possible to put through the site access routes from the east and to the north of the site. St Modwen’s site on its own, on the west end of this great industrial land, has only the narrowest of roads connecting it to the outside world, and it goes through a number of residential seats. It is the worst possible access imaginable to an industrial site. In putting this great jigsaw puzzle back together, the possibility is opening of putting big new roads in, leading straight on to the M6, if we so choose. It becomes, for the first time, not just a site where new access roads are possible, but where those access roads could connect to the great backbone of the M6.



I was of course immediately taken with the potential of developing the site holistically for the first time in a century, so in 2011 and 2012 I asked the master planners at Birmingham city council to give us a sense of the jobs potential of creating an holistic plan for developing a site the size of 105 football pitches. I was pretty shocked by the answer that I got: having done some detailed work, they told us that between 5,000 and 7,000 jobs could be created on the site if it was developed holistically, with new access routes to the north and the east. A site with that power, with that number of jobs, would of course not only have an enormous impact on unemployment in the east of the city, but bring into the coffers of Birmingham city council £5 million in new business rates every year.

However, the last Conservative-Liberal administration in the city appears to have overlooked a great jewel, and to have not made sufficiently robust arguments to HS2 about a different way forward. This is a great prize for any city, and particularly for us in east Birmingham, because of the high unemployment with which we are cursed. The Library tells us that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington, 3,917 people are on jobseeker’s allowance. In Ladywood, 7,363 people are out of work. In my constituency, the figure is 5,379. There are 16,500 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in our three constituencies; that is out of a city total of just over 37,000, so 44% of those on jobseeker’s allowance live in our three constituencies—the constituencies that surround this great industrial space. For those who are interested, the bill that the taxpayer picks up for those unemployed citizens—our residents—is £73.8 million a year. If we developed the site to its full potential, as set out by the master planners at Birmingham city council, we could halve that bill. We could save the taxpayer £35 million of unemployment benefit if we put jobs, not sheds, on the site. That is why we have been making this argument for the past couple of years.

I know that High Speed 2 needs a marshalling yard. We are supporters of High Speed 2 and we want it to be a success. We want it to happen fast. We very much welcome the work that David Higgins has done to take cost out of the equation. However, we must think more laterally about where the alternative sites might be. The Minister knows as well as I do that alternative sites are available. During the past two or three years, we have heard an increasingly dull account of why it was not possible to develop those sites as a marshalling yard. What we get is references to “operational issues”, but no one—not the Minister’s predecessor, not the Secretary of State and not David Higgins, the head of HS2—has been able to tell me in any detail what on earth those operational issues are. I have yet to see one analysis that brings together any extra cost of putting a marshalling yard elsewhere, netted against the value of the opportunity that we know exists. That includes the savings on the dole bill, the increases in business rates and some of the other economic advantages that we know we could secure. No one has been able to give me that sum, so in a way I am here to speak for taxpayers, and to say that taxpayers are funding High Speed 2, the unemployment bills and the shortfalls in Birmingham city council’s budget. We want to know holistically how these sums add up.

The Minister is a Transport Minister who speaks for the Department for Transport. I know from my experience in Whitehall that sometimes Whitehall fails to join things up, but in a decision of this economic consequence, what the taxpayer is owed is one sum that brings together on one piece of paper the cost to the Department for Work and Pensions, Birmingham city council, the Department for Transport and HS2. We need to have that sum. I am not saying that the Minister should lay it out for us this morning, but I know that he will want to write to me after the debate with those calculations, because I know that, like me, he wants taxpayers to know the full facts and the full truth.

Unless the plans change, we are confronting the most grim of scenarios, because we are set to lose not only the great prizes that I think are there for the taking, but hundreds of job in the short term. As the Minister knows, the site is not completely empty. It is home to the great Business Post, to Cemex, which makes most of the railway sleepers that our country needs, and to other great businesses, such as Taroni’s. In fact, by my calculations, there are some 850 jobs on the site today, but those businesses are closing. They are increasingly frustrated and they are haggling and arguing with a normally non-communicative HS2, because they now have to close down, so we will lose 850 jobs in the worst unemployment hot spot in the country during the next couple of years. Why? For the prize of perhaps 500 or 550 jobs in 10 years’ time. The scenario that we are confronting could not be worse. The Minister will forgive me for saying that this is a thoroughly misguided decision. It would be a misguided decision anywhere, but in the worst unemployment hot spot in the entire United Kingdom, the decision should not be taken lightly.

As I said, the hon. Member for Solihull would very much have liked to have been here this morning, but is recovering from surgery. She would, in the ceremonial nature of these things, congratulate us on having the debate. She says that High Speed 2

“is founded on the fundamental principles of regeneration and enhancing the economic prospects of the UK and specifically those communities located near to the lines and terminals.

The irony therefore is not lost on me or indeed other colleagues from across all the main parties…when one considers the social and economic desecration that siting a Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot at Washwood Heath would have on that local community.

As someone who is a supporter of HS2 and in particular has taken a keen interest”

in the decision to locate the depot at Washwood Heath,

“I very much welcome the chance to debate this issue, an issue which for too long has been left unresolved.”

Like me, the hon. Lady draws attention to the very high unemployment levels in the area. They are double the national average. Youth unemployment in my constituency is the highest in the country. I very much welcome the support that she is giving as part of a cross-party alliance of Birmingham MPs calling on HS2 and the Government to think again, and to do so quickly.

I want to conclude with some thoughts on what the Minister should do next. I would obviously like the yard to be moved elsewhere. If the decision is taken not to move it elsewhere, I would like the Minister to show me, in pounds and pence, how the deal makes sense. I want him to take into account the opportunity cost—the potential for a reduction in the dole bills in east Birmingham, and the potential for extra business rates to flow into the coffers of Birmingham city council.

If HS2 is not prepared to budge, and we are not prepared to adopt plan B for the site, I want to see big ambition for jobs growth in east Birmingham. I do not want vague promises that “We will do our best.” I want a number. I want to know what the Department for Transport’s ambition is, to the nearest hundred, for the number of jobs that will be created in east Birmingham, and I want to know when HS2 and the Department for Transport want to see those jobs go on offer. I want local labour market agreements to go alongside any new plans to develop the Curzon street terminus in east Birmingham. I want to know what promises will be made and fulfilled for extra skills and training.

The point is really very simple: High Speed 2 should be a big positive for our city. It brings with it the promise of thousands of extra jobs across the west midlands and gives us vital capacity, but there is now a cross-party alliance of Members of Parliament saying to the Minister that we do not want High Speed 2 to be good for just some; we demand that it be good for all.

09:50

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I would like to start by telling the tale of two great plants. The first is the Jaguar Land Rover plant. When I was elected in 2010, the Jaguar plant in Erdington was on its way to closure. I remember meeting the management and shop stewards before the general election, and there was a funereal atmosphere. After I was elected, my first priority was to work with the Government, the new management brought in by Tata, the work force and a range of other players to put together the complex jigsaw that led to the historic decision by Tata in October 2010 to invest £5 billion. I will never forget that day. We stood outside the Jaguar heritage centre in Erdington, and I said that a plant with such a great history—it manufactured the Spitfire during the war and two generations of Jaguars afterwards—was now safe for the next generation. A factory with a great history had a great future.

Secondly, as deputy general secretary of the old Transport and General Workers’ Union, I was involved in a successful campaign to win an order for LDV that helped to keep the factory going. Tragically, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said, LDV ultimately closed in 2009—a particular factor was that it did not succeed in securing a key order. LDV also had a remarkable history of motor manufacturing: the bodies for the Morris Minor were first produced there in 1948, and Morris commercial vans commenced production in 1974. It was a tragedy that a second factory with a great history ended up with no future.

Why do I paint that background? Because High Speed 2 impacted on both factories. In the case of Jaguar Land Rover, bizarrely, it was proposed that the High Speed 2 route would take out the Jaguar rail terminal. However, constructive discussions with the Government and the Secretary of State followed, involving my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who cannot be here today. The outcome of those discussions was the welcome decision to re-route the High Speed 2 line to avoid taking out the Jaguar terminal.

In the case of LDV—sadly now history—I will do my best to describe the bizarre proposal as it affects Washwood Heath. I remember meeting an LDV worker in Kingstanding in 2010—I met a lot of them, as many live in my constituency. He had lost his job early in 2009 and subsequently been out of work. He was absolutely devastated; he was a skilled man who worked for LDV for 25 years. I stayed in touch with him and met him only last month. He had managed to get back into secure employment. He and one of his LDV mates—an old friend—both said the same thing to me: they asked with incredulity, “Why put a maintenance depot on the old site where we worked for so many years when it is perfectly possible for the depot to be put elsewhere? Why not develop that great site, as we understand the council is proposing, for commercial and manufacturing use?” They kept asking, “Why Washwood Heath?” One of them went on, “Not least because, Jack, we need the jobs here locally. Where I live in Kingstanding, one in four young people are out of work. We desperately need those jobs. I would like to see that site, where I went to work for so many years and that generated thousands of jobs when I worked at LDV, generating thousands of jobs again.” He is absolutely right: we do need the jobs, which are at the heart of Birmingham’s ambitious plan for economic growth. Because of the excellent work that has been done by right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, in alliance with a number of potential developers and sources of finance, we are talking about not just jobs on that site but good jobs—high-quality jobs.

I would like to draw a parallel with Jaguar Land Rover. I was in the Jaguar plant last Friday. It has an excellent programme to train young people, providing a ladder into apprenticeships and giving hope to the young unemployed in my constituency. That is exactly the kind of hope and opportunity that we would like to create by making sensible use of the Washwood Heath site.

Like my right hon. Friend I am a strong supporter of High Speed 2. At the heart of the argument for that project is the contribution it will make to the growth of our country as a whole. Britain cannot succeed through London and the south-east alone. There is cross-party support for High Speed 2, so there is no question about the principle; it is a grand, ambitious project that should go ahead. Nevertheless, would it not be bizarre if something designed to develop and create jobs actually causes the sacking of workers currently in a job and the denial of opportunities on a grand scale—potentially 5,000 to 7,000 jobs at the next stage?

I live in the real world and know that the issue is not without difficulties, but where there is a will, there is a way. I hope that, just as they engaged constructively with local MPs on re-routing the line in the best interests of Jaguar Land Rover, the Government will engage constructively with MPs to see the marshalling terminal developed elsewhere and the site used in the way that our city so desperately needs.

09:58

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

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) has secured this debate on an issue that is important to his constituency and the neighbouring constituencies of Birmingham, Erdington, Birmingham, Ladywood and my own constituency, Birmingham, Perry Barr—it is important across Birmingham. Birmingham has a huge history of engineering and manufacturing, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. It is a great place, and Washwood Heath is the perfect site to house what he proposes, rather than the HS2 marshalling yard.

My right hon. Friend was right to say that all the Opposition Members present have been great supporters of HS2. I had the great privilege to serve with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, which was a step forward in securing the high-speed line. We believe it is important to secure that because it will create a new transport mechanism for the whole country. More importantly, it will allow us to create valuable jobs.

Like nowhere else, Birmingham has facilities available, and we are prepared. We have engineering capability in our city. In my constituency, we have an advanced manufacturing zone that currently supports a lot of the great work being done in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) by supplying Jaguar Land Rover. We want to see more people there because that would allow us to build more capacity to support the services that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill mentioned. If a broad base were already set up, it would make that much easier. Birmingham would be far more advanced than any other city. That is why it is important that we do this.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that we need local job agreements, as such agreements are important to our constituents. As a nation, we are providing a huge infrastructure and, ultimately, our constituents and the people of this country should benefit more than anyone else. Most other places have such agreements, and we should seek to deal with that issue in our discussions on the European Union stipulations. It is important that we do that to move forward.

Just to prove a point about what we do in Birmingham, Perry Barr, I was hugely privileged earlier this year when we got a brand-new Engineering Employers Federation training facility, which the EEF paid for itself—the EEF received no grants for that at all. It is a fantastic new training centre off Holford drive in my constituency, and it regularly takes on more than 300 new trainees from companies that still serve our great city and the region. They are trained on a 34-week programme in proper engineering facilities. We need to get back to the days when we had proper manufacturing machinery: computer numerically controlled lathes and millers, normal milling machines, welding equipment and all those things that we tend to forget and walk past. They are the tools that provide engineering skills and capability. It is important for us to consider the way in which engineering has built Birmingham, and we need to get back to that.

Huge improvements have been made by Jaguar Land Rover. When it was said that we could not carry on with manufacturing, it was a complete fallacy, as has been proved by the new management at Jaguar Land Rover. Birmingham and the people of Birmingham can do it, as has been proved time and again. We have facilities and further education institutions in the city. We have South and City college, which serves both my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. Indeed, he also has a construction centre operated by South and City college in his constituency. I am sure that the college will be able to step up to the plate and provide more national vocational qualification level 3 training facilities, which are hugely needed.

We have facilities that will enable us to move forward and provide the support that an engineering base needs in Birmingham. We have done that, and Birmingham is far ahead of any other city. As my right hon. Friend said, it is important that we create jobs in Birmingham. It has been forgotten for too long nationally. Other cities have prospered that, with all due respect, do not have the facilities and skills that Birmingham has had traditionally. I can declare that because I trained at Delta Metals when I was a lot younger than I am now. I went through an apprenticeship, and it was a great place for manufacturing and engineering, which allowed me to progress.

It is important that we encourage the entrepreneurs of the future. As my colleagues have said, entrepreneurs such as James Watt developed the engineering skills that allowed this country, and at that time the empire, to move forward. If we are to move forward as a nation, we need to get back to the principles of making things that add value. Engineering and manufacturing do that, and we certainly have those capabilities. Birmingham has—excuse the pun—a huge track record of delivering engineering, and I support my right hon. Friend.

09:59

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) on securing this important and timely debate. He has consistently drawn attention to the impact that the proposed maintenance depot could have on his constituency and on Birmingham as a whole, and he has presented a powerful case this morning, ably supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood).

Today’s debate is especially well timed because Birmingham city council and Centro will be the first organisations to have their petitions heard by the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. I am sure that, as a consequence, many interested parties will be following this morning’s proceedings with even closer attention than usual. I take this opportunity to congratulate Birmingham, along with Derby, Manchester and Doncaster, on reaching the shortlist for hosting the proposed high-speed rail further education college. All my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, talked about Birmingham’s track record, and the things that will allow it to make a strong case as the competition proceeds.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, made it clear in his opening speech that he is a strong supporter of High Speed 2, and I am grateful for his powerful contributions on Second Reading of the hybrid Bill and in the Adjournment debate he secured last January. He is entirely right to make the case for the project while seeking the best possible outcomes for his constituency and for Birmingham, but I will say a few words about the benefits that HS2 will bring not only to that city but to the wider west midlands before returning to the specific issues of Washwood Heath.

Birmingham’s economic health is closely tied to the operational health of the west coast main line, which is a vital economic artery for the region. As hon. Members for the west midlands know all too well, the west coast main line is also where our capacity constraints are most acutely felt. Passenger numbers have doubled over the past 20 years, placing enormous demands on our infrastructure. The railways are carrying the same number of passengers as they did in the 1920s on a network less than half the size, and the west coast main line is now the busiest passenger and freight rail line in Europe. Network Rail has warned that by 2024 the line will “effectively be full.” As record passenger growth continues, the day of reckoning may arrive sooner.

Annual passenger growth has averaged 5% over the past decade, but the Office of Rail Regulation recently confirmed that passenger numbers grew by 5.7% last year. The reality of those numbers is borne out by the thousands of commuters who are left standing every day as their trains approach Birmingham and other cities. The difficulty of running more commuter trains over mixed-use tracks, on which they have to compete with freight and fast inter-city services for paths, is well understood. By contrast, the process whereby local trains are squeezed off the network completely has not been well reported, but its effects are already being felt in the west midlands.

Geoff Inskip, the chief executive of Centro, told MPs last year that after the £9 billion west coast modernisation project some communities actually received a worse service than before:

“If we look back at the timetable changes that took place in December 2008, we put in more services to London, but those were at the expense of local services. Therefore we had worsening of service frequencies at local stations and loss of direct local services between, for example, the black country and Birmingham airport and Coventry.”––[Official Report, High Speed Rail (Preparation) Public Bill Committee, 9 July 2013; c. 18, Q32.]

Looking at those changes in detail, we see that Walsall lost its half-hourly service to Birmingham International airport. Both Walsall and Cannock lost their direct trains to the north beyond Rugeley Trent Valley, and there was a worsening of journey times on the line from Birmingham to Northampton.

I recently visited Barlaston station on the west coast main line and saw for myself what the consequences will be if that process is followed through to its logical extreme. A passenger train last stopped at Barlaston, just south of Stoke-on-Trent, in 2003. Services were suspended to allow work on the west coast modernisation project, and they have remained suspended ever since, in part because its paths have been reassigned to enable more inter-city trains.

Nearby Stone managed to reopen its station in 2008, and it has seen a dramatic increase in usage, but following a recent change in timetables, a journey from Barlaston to Stoke on the official bus replacement service takes around an hour, whereas the same trip would have taken five minutes by train. That is a particularly stark example of the effect that the capacity crunch is having on the network, and it can also be seen in Birmingham. Attempts to reopen the Camp Hill line, which served important communities in the south of the city, such as Moseley and Kings Heath, have been repeatedly frustrated by the lack of spare capacity at New Street station.

As the pressures on the network grow, we need action to prevent local services and freight trains from being squeezed off the network completely. Given the experience of the west coast modernisation project, which cost the taxpayer at least £9 billion and 10 years of disruption, a high-speed line is the best solution. The clear message is that there is a real need for more capacity on our railways, both to allow grade separation of traffic and to accommodate growing demand for inter-city, commuter and freight services.

We also need to plan ahead to make sure that our cities maximise the benefits that HS2 will bring. When I visited Birmingham in March, I was struck, as I think anyone would be, by the scale and vision of its plans for regenerating the Eastside area and integrating the Curzon Street station with local public transport. I hope that through the petitioning process a stronger consensus will be achieved between the city council, Centro, and HS2 Ltd on the best way to achieve those aims.

The petitions of Birmingham city council, the national exhibition centre, Centro and Birmingham airport all make it clear that they strongly support the principle of building HS2, but they are, understandably, seeking changes that they believe will maximise those local benefits, as my hon. Friends have done today. I do not propose to go through all the modifications that they are seeking, although I take some pride in the fact that it was Opposition Front Benchers who secured an assurance from the Government—from the Minister—that the Select Committee would be able to hear petitions related to passive provision for a future link to HS1, something that I know the city has been concerned about.

The council seeks changes for the Washwood Heath site. It is vital that it receives a fair hearing when it gives evidence to the Bill Committee. Specifically, it is asking: for a minimised land take for the depot; for provision for training and skills development; and for the HS2 network’s control centre to be based at the site. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, has previously said that Washwood Heath represents a third of all brownfield land that is suitable for industrial development in Birmingham. Unemployment is clearly a serious problem in the surrounding area. As the former site of the LDV works and those of Metro Cammell—later Alstom—the land has a proud manufacturing history, so the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington, about the need for not only jobs, but good, high-quality jobs, are absolutely understood.

The site has been cleared for redevelopment, so it makes sense to minimise the land that HS2 will require as far as is reasonably practical, and to reach an early decision on the overall footprint of the proposed train maintenance depot. Of course, it is an important principle that the Select Committee should be able to govern its own affairs, and we should not seek to prejudice its decisions, but I am sure that the promoter, HS2 Ltd, has taken a careful note of the arguments put forward this morning.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, said that regeneration and economic development are an essential part of the HS2 project, and he rightly calls for clarity on job creation and training opportunities. Presumably, this is a matter that can be explored in more depth through the Government’s long-awaited jobs and skills strategy. When I last asked the Minister about the report’s progress, he said:

“We expect it to be set out in more detail in the latter part of 2014.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 388W.]

That was in February. Can the Minister confirm today that the report is still on course to be produced in 2014, and is he able to give a more precise date for its publication?

I would also like to ask a question about the network control centre. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, secured a debate on this matter in 2013, the then Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), said:

“There is also the potential to locate the HS2 control centre at Washwood Heath, generating a further 100 jobs.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 644.]

Indeed, that is one of the requests that Birmingham city council made in its petition, but HS2 Ltd’s rolling stock depot and stabling strategy, which was published in April, stated:

“The HS2 network control centre will also be located on the Washwood Heath site.”

Will the Minister confirm that the matter has now been settled? Does he have confidence in the figure of 650 jobs being directly created at the site, and what estimate has he made of the indirect job creation, both when the line is built and in the run-up? My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, rightly asked for ambition and certainty, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively today.

HS2 will bring great benefits to Birmingham. It will place the city at the physical and operational heart of the national high-speed network; it will create and support thousands of jobs and provide new links to our country’s great cities. As a Nottingham MP, I know how poor those links can be, and that HS2 would revolutionise the connections between the east and west midlands.

Labour supports HS2, but, given the scale of public investment involved, it is essential that value for money is maintained, and that the petitioning process looks at the specific objections that have been made and at the arguments put forward today. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, who has brought these issues to national attention, and I look forward to the Minister addressing the questions that have been raised.

10:16

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) on securing this debate on the location of the HS2 rolling stock maintenance depot at Washwood Heath. There is no doubt he speaks with genuine passion and conviction on behalf of his constituents. I know how important the area is for jobs and regeneration in his constituency. I hope that he will accept that we closely share his interest in maximising the benefits that the site can deliver. I also understand the history and heritage of the site. Indeed, I suspect he might wish me to point out that locomotives were also built in Glasgow, as well as in the north-east and Leeds. This country has a great engineering heritage. Of course, it has been the home of many great vehicles over the years, culminating in the Leyland Sherpa. Many will remember the LDV vehicles.

Before I go into the proposed use of the site for HS2 and what is being done to maximise the economic benefits for that area, I want to say again how important the Government believe HS2 is for the country. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). The two main parties share the view that HS2 is important.

HS2 is a crucial part of our plans to develop the right infrastructure for future economic growth. HS2 will create 24,600 jobs during construction and maintenance, support 100,000 jobs around stations and depots, and create up to 2,000 opportunities for apprentices. In fact, some external estimates are even higher, with some predicting that HS2 will underpin the delivery of 400,000 jobs, and 70% of jobs supported by HS2 are expected to be outside London. I am sure the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill will agree that, while benefiting the whole country, HS2 offers significant opportunities for those in the west midlands area and in his constituency.

The new terminus station at Curzon Street, the interchange station near Birmingham airport, and the west coast main line will put Birmingham and Solihull at the centre of the country’s transport infrastructure, creating huge opportunities for growth in the area. The Curzon Street station will be a catalyst for the development of the Eastside area of the city and offers real regeneration potential for the Digbeth area. The interchange station will act as a focus for the economic development plans of local authorities and the area’s local enterprise partnership. HS2 will bring construction jobs and operational jobs when the line is open. It will support wider jobs and wealth creation, improving the prospects for businesses and people across the west midlands.

HS2 could help to support growth in employment of more than 8,000 jobs in the regeneration and development areas around the Birmingham stations. Centro estimates that the figure will be closer to 10,000 jobs, with as many as 22,000 jobs created in the wider region once phase 2 is completed and economic output is increasing by £1.5 billion.

The right hon. Gentleman’s constituency will also benefit. The Washwood Heath rolling stock maintenance depot will itself create employment in this area; approximately 640 jobs will be created and I am pleased to confirm that figure. These jobs are not dependent on the realisation of commercial opportunities or other redevelopment of the site. They are real jobs linked to a funded scheme that has the backing of Parliament. Bringing the depot to this site, which has an historical association with the railway, will kick-start the wider regeneration of the area.

The right hon. Gentleman raised questions in relation to the selection of the site for the rolling stock maintenance depot. I reassure him that a vigorous process for the identification of the site has been undertaken. A number of technical requirements informed much of the site selection process. Additionally, the key factors influencing the site selection process included location, size, access to the HS2 network and sustainability. The initial assessment concluded that a west midlands location was more appropriate than a site in the London area.

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way with characteristic generosity. He outlined the criteria that were used to conclude that Washwood Heath was the right site. I know that he cares about the interests of the taxpayer, as I do. I could not help but notice that he did not include on that list any assessment of the extra business rates that could be developed and delivered through alternative use of this site, and he did not flag up any savings to the unemployment bill, although savings of £74 million a year could be achieved through alternative development of the site. Therefore, I am concerned, as I know he will be, that there should be a holistic, whole-of-Government, whole-of-taxpayer analysis of whether the site is the right one and not simply an analysis based on the narrow and particular concerns of HS2 Ltd. If he is not able to bring forward such a whole-of-Government assessment of costs today, will he undertake to do so in due course?

[Mr Goodwill]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. However, looking at the wider economic area of the west midlands, there have been tremendous opportunities for investment. Jaguar Land Rover is building an engine plant and there are other big investments coming in. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), said, we have finally got it and understood that manufacturing jobs and making things in this country for export are very important. That is how, in many ways, we have created jobs in this country. The unemployment figure falls month after month after month, and the number of people claiming benefit falls month after month after month. That is in marked contrast to the record of the previous Government, who seemed to bet the farm on the City of London and jobs in financial services.

Perhaps I can outline to the right hon. Gentleman why we feel this site is the best site, and the operational considerations that were factored into the decision to house the depot at Washwood Heath. Those considerations include the need for trains to slow down as they approach the depot, which means it is operationally better for the depot to be on a slow section of the route. Washwood Heath is also close to Curzon Street station, where trains will start their journey. If the depot were located on a section of the route where trains do not start their journey, the train running costs would be increased.

After the assessment, a long list of potential sites in the west midlands area were identified and evaluated. That resulted in a shortlist of sites and a further evaluation to enable a preferred option—Washwood Heath—to be identified as the most suitable rolling stock depot location.

Washwood Heath was selected as a preferred option because of its proximity to the Curzon Street station; it is situated off the main HS2 line of route; and the site is centrally placed within a future national high-speed network. From a sustainability perspective, the site is not in the green belt. The process is documented in HS2 Ltd’s report entitled, “Rolling Stock Maintenance Depot Selection”, which was prepared in September 2010.

Recognising the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns and those of the landowners at Washwood Heath, which have emerged since the selection process that I have just described, HS2 Ltd updated its assessment, looking at the concerns raised and the alternative sites proposed for the rolling stock maintenance depot. That assessment concluded that Washwood Heath remained the preferred option for the depot, and it was considered by Ministers in May 2013. That conclusion was largely due to the fact that Washwood Heath is operationally better than the other sites that were considered.

The remaining question is how best to utilise the residual land at Washwood Heath that will not be required for the depot, to deliver the benefits to the local area that the right hon. Gentleman rightly seeks for his constituency. Once the railway is constructed, approximately 16 hectares—that is 40 acres in English—of land will be available for development purposes, and HS2 Ltd is continuing to work with Birmingham city council to maximise both the amount of residual land and the employment opportunities that can be brought to the area.

Through the west midlands HS2 strategic board and its jobs and skills working group, HS2 Ltd is working closely with both Birmingham city council and a broader group of stakeholders to maximise the employment and skills opportunities that HS2 will create. That process includes the development of an HS2 jobs and skills charter, and an HS2 jobs and skills master plan. We have already heard that Birmingham is on the shortlist of four locations for the HS2 skills academy, the further education college that will be very important in delivering the skills training required to ensure that British people have the skills to take the jobs that become available through the HS2 project.

During the construction of HS2, the nominated undertaker will ensure, in so far as it is lawful to do so, equality of opportunity to encourage the recruitment of local, disadvantaged or under-represented groups. That is in accordance with the HS2 sustainability policy, which states that contractors will work with HS2 Ltd to improve skills, jobs, education and the economy through its investment along the route.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact on businesses that are based on the Washwood Heath site. UK Mail, formerly Business Post, has its headquarters and national distribution hub on the site, which is why HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport have successfully agreed a package of advance compensation with the company to allow it to relocate to a purpose-built facility at Ryton in Coventry, which is currently under construction. That site is about 20 miles away from the Washwood site. UK Mail is also proposing to open a north Birmingham hub that is close to the proposed site, which will create approximately 70 jobs.

In addition, HS2 Ltd is in discussions with the other major landowners, including Cemex, regarding their acquisition and relocation, and it has published a business relocation policy that underpins that activity. I should also point out that, if I were in the business of manufacturing concrete sleepers, I would see a very prosperous and successful future ahead, given the unprecedented investment that we have put into the existing rail network as well as into high-speed rail, which is on the horizon. Indeed, we are investing £38 billion to improve the classic rail network.

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister says that Cemex has a bright future and he was absolutely right to say so. I was therefore highly alarmed to read the letter to me from Cemex, which said that, given the strategic importance of Cemex to the reconstruction of our railway system, the company is incredibly frustrated that no specific detailed plans have come forward from HS2 Ltd to address what is now a pressing need to develop relocation strategies. Cemex also makes the point that securing planning permission for a new site for its business will take about two years; that is how long it takes to get planning permission for that kind of business. Therefore, the prospect of a closure in the short term without clarity about the long term is not only a matter for Cemex and the 300 or 400 people whom it employs but a matter of strategic criticality to the Minister’s plans and ambitions for railway construction.

[Mr Goodwill]

I absolutely understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes and I will ask HS2 Ltd to give me an update on the progress of those negotiations. Obviously, the time scale for building the project is a long one, and I hope that that will allow an opportunity for Cemex and other businesses that are affected up and down the route to be able to ensure continuity of operation and employment.

HS2 Ltd is in active discussions with AXA, Birmingham city council and others, to identify and resolve as many ongoing concerns as is reasonably practical.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I specifically asked about the jobs and skills strategy, which the Minister mentioned, and when that might be published. He also mentioned the jobs and skills charter and the jobs and skills master plan, which I am not sure that I have seen. Will he say a bit more about those and when they might be in the public domain?

[Mr Goodwill]

I undertook to publish that information by the end of 2014 and that is still the case, although I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Lady more detail on the date. However, if HS2 Ltd tells me that that information is available, I will give it to her.

HS2 Ltd has met Cemex a number of times since March 2014, with a view to making progress on relocating the business under the code. The next meeting is on Monday 23 June.

Taxpayer analysis is difficult—the right hon. Gentleman talked about how to weigh up the costs of unemployment and everything else—when based on aspiration about jobs, rather than real jobs on this site, so I am not sure whether we can agree a firm basis or set of assumptions upon which the type of analysis requested could take place. To be fair, assessment would also need to include employment opportunity costs and costs of alternative sites. Just because this site would not be available, say, for an overseas investor, does not mean that investment would not come into the United Kingdom: it could go to a number of possible sites around the country, including in the west midlands.

HS2 Ltd is meeting Birmingham city council and Centro as we speak. I am sure that the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman, including maximising the regeneration of the residual land, will be on the agenda.

I confirm that the control centre will be based on the Washwood Heath site. The 640 jobs are to be created at the depot and we estimate that between 870 and 1,700 jobs could be created on the residual land.

It is also important that we get the terminology correct, to ensure that we all have a consistent understanding of the plans for the Washwood Heath site. The term “marshalling yard”, which is often used by the right hon. Gentleman, underplays the investment of more than £100 million in this area and the range of entry level, intermediate, technical and professional jobs that that will create.

I am afraid that I need to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, because I have to reiterate the difference between aspirational plans that could create jobs, and the Government’s detailed plans to create actual jobs on the site.

[Mr Byrne]

I thank the Minister for giving way to me a third time. I should welcome his views on whether the way through is to agree that, given the opportunity cost of developing the site in the way that he proposes and given the clear risk of economic damage, the jobs and growth plan that he has undertaken to publish by the end of the year should include a defined level of ambition for creating jobs in east Birmingham. That would be the least he could do. As part of that, there should not simply be a plan for the residual land, because as he knows that land does not become available until the 2020s. He will be as concerned as I am with the blueprints, which he will have seen, to put 8 hectares of balancing pond on this land. I love a good lake as much as the Minister, but in east Birmingham we need jobs, not lakes. The great River Tame runs alongside the north of the site, so taking 8 hectares of balancing pond out of the equation would be a good idea.

I hope that, as the Minister develops the jobs and growth plan, we can agree that there should be a defined level of ambition for east Birmingham and we should not simply be talking about the residual land. We should be looking to minimise the land take during the construction period, because, of course, that is the here and now.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will certainly ask HS2 Ltd whether it needs all the residual land for the construction of the project. Of course, the cost of not having an operationally viable rolling stock maintenance depot is that we will not have a viable project. I have already outlined the benefits to the UK economy in general and the west midlands economy in particular from HS2. Indeed, if HS2 were not to go ahead, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be at risk.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that 5,000 or 7,000 jobs could be created on the site, but our opinion is that such employment densities are unlikely to be achieved. It is unlikely that manufacturing users would necessarily achieve higher employment densities on the site and, certainly, it is unlikely such densities would be secured for 100% of the site. Our consultants estimate that a figure of 3,700 jobs is more likely.

[Mr Byrne]

That is a big number.

[Mr Goodwill]

It is quite a big number. However, warehousing and similar development on sites throughout the country would undercut the level of jobs aspired to.

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns in relation to Jaguar Land Rover, I confirm that, while the area is safeguarded, there are no plans to take out this yard. I am pleased that Jaguar Land Rover continues to be successful. I have had six of their products over the years and am very proud of Jaguar Land Rover and what it is doing. There is a tunnel in the area where the Jaguar Land Rover freight road is located.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister helpfully disclosed the Government’s own assessment of the potential to create 3,700 jobs. Will he confirm that their estimate of what could happen is four times greater than the proposal currently on the table for the marshalling yard, if it goes ahead?

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed. We have been absolutely honest about this. The density of employment in the yard, under the proposals, is not as high as the density under high-value engineering or even warehousing or other uses for the site. However, the advantages to the west midlands as a whole from this project will bring jobs to the area. At the moment, month after month, more jobs are being created in the private sector, which have more than compensated for jobs lost in the public sector.

The 6 hectares of balancing pond is critical infrastructure to help manage flood risk in the area. Any development in the land would need to deal with water attenuation. This is not unique to the use of the land as a depot. It is important, from a water management point of view, that something is done about water if large areas of concrete are being laid on the land.

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister will be familiar with the site, although possibly not as familiar as I am. I am sure that he recognises that the great River Tame runs alongside the north boundary of the site. He will have his work cut out justifying that 6 or 8 hectares of balancing pond are needed to manage the flood risk, when there is a mighty river to the north of the boundary.

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the 3,700 figure and for confirming to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) that that is four times the number that will be created under current plans. I am grateful that the Minister has accepted that the jobs and growth plan could include a defined level of ambition for job creation in east Birmingham. Does he agree that 3,700 is the right ambition that we should be shooting for, as a job-creation target, and will he confirm that when introducing his plans during 2014?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am slightly nervous to challenge any figures given by a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, given that his figures were so correct when he was in that role. I should like to make it clear that the aspiration for 3,700 jobs is based on floor-space density. However, the depot itself will create 640 jobs and the residual land will have the potential to create 1,700 jobs. That is 2,340 jobs on the site. Real jobs are being created through this project, not aspirational jobs, which would be great to have, but in some cases could be pie in the sky.

We and HS2 Ltd are working hard not only to implement a scheme that will bring the widest possible benefits to the country as a whole, but to help all those who will be affected. HS2 Ltd is already engaged with those parties who have raised concerns through the petition management process on the rolling stock maintenance depot at Washwood Heath, and we remain committed to working with those parties as we move to the Select Committee process. In that regard, HS2 Ltd’s intention is to continue to work with Birmingham city council and key landowners to enable the rolling stock maintenance depot to co-exist with additional employment uses, thereby maximising the economic benefits of the land. The Government and HS2 Ltd will continue to support the right hon. Gentleman’s aspirations for Washwood Heath, with the rolling stock maintenance depot integral to those plans.

10:41

Sitting suspended.

Independent Living Fund Recipients

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The independent living fund has transformed people’s lives. The ILF does exactly what it says on the tin: it liberates people who would otherwise not be able to live independently. It lets them make choices about how they live, things we often take for granted—when to get up or go to bed, what and when to eat. It allows them to work, to be active in the community and to live in their own homes. I challenge the Minister to guarantee to those in receipt of ILF that they will not become less independent as a result of his Government’s decision to close the fund in June 2015. That is what people fear; that is what they are frightened of—they fear losing their jobs, the staff whom they employ to support them and their independence. They fear being forced out of their homes and into institutions.

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

As my hon. Friend might be aware, in Wales the responsibility will go to the Assembly and then to local authorities. I have approached my authority, and it is uncertain what exactly is happening. There is a lot of fear out there among people who are totally reliant on the ILF payment to lead as normal a life as possible. They are being hurt now.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister might well say that he is passing the moneys and the responsibility to local authorities—through the Welsh Assembly in Wales’s case—but that will not ease people’s fears.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Opposition spokesmen are not allowed to take part in a half-hour debate, whether intervening or making speeches.

[Nic Dakin]

Thank you, Mr Robertson, but it is important to recognise the number of Members present wanting to take part. I very much welcome that.

The Minister is a good Minister, and I am sure that he is not naive enough to believe that passing responsibility to local authorities absolves him of the responsibility for the decision. I am afraid that he will not get away with devolving responsibility and blame for the consequences of the decision to others.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Does he agree that the dignity, the independence and the human rights of disabled people who need that high level of support can only be met by the continuation of the ILF?

[Nic Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I am asking the Minister for guarantees that people’s independence will not be compromised under any future arrangements.

Disabled People Against Cuts calculates the existing annual cost of support at around £288 million, and yet the Government have only identified £262 million to transfer to local authorities. That discrepancy is not a good start. The Government are giving no reassurance that that money will be ring-fenced to spend only on support for disabled people to live independently, rather than be absorbed into broader council budgets.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the structure in which the funding is delivered is more important than the services being delivered?

[Nic Dakin]

Absolutely. It is the services that matter, but any change in structure needs to guarantee people’s independence in future. Tinkering with structures and risking people’s futures is not something that anyone can do at the drop of a hat. I very much agree that what matters is services, not structure, but why change the structure if it is delivering, creating all the uncertainty and concern that is around?

According to Scope, £2.68 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets in the past three years alone, equating to 20% of net spending. That is happening when the number of working-age disabled people needing care is projected to rise by 9.2% between 2010 and 2020. In a recent survey, 40% of disabled people reported that social care services already fail to meet their basic needs, such as washing, dressing or getting out of the house, and 47% of respondents said that the services they received do not enable them to take part in community life. It is not surprising that people are desperately worried about their future.

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

rose—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Contrary to what I said earlier—I have just reread my notes—Front Benchers may contribute with interventions, but not on subjects that are part of their own portfolio. Sorry about that.

I call Barbara Keeley.

[Barbara Keeley]

Thank you, Mr Robertson. I am glad that that is clear now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) is making an excellent speech on behalf of people who are worried about those vital resources, which will not be ring-fenced. Does he agree that there is an issue, as he has pointed out, about devolving to local authorities? My local authority is cash-strapped; 1,000 people will lose their care packages this year. Will the change not simply put a burden on unpaid family carers? Is that not a double burden, because people with the most difficult physical problems might be hard to lift and move—except by trained carers—which risks injury or fracture to them, as well to the carer doing the lifting?

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right. She speaks with a lot of experience and insight into the issue, which she has campaigned on for a long while. She is right that the other group of people who might find themselves under significant pressure are the family carers of those now in receipt of ILF.

The worry, as my hon. Friend has indicated, is that the continued underfunding of social care will mean that the care system will simply not be able to support disabled people to live independently. The lack of reference to independent living in the definition of the well-being principle in the Care Act 2014, which local authorities will need to take into account when providing care, further fuels that anxiety.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Nic Dakin]

I happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The point that I wanted to make is that, in Islington, 100 people are dependent on ILF. Although the local authority has undertaken to continue that support next year for those currently in receipt of ILF, the authority cannot give any guarantee that that funding will go on in future, in particular given that Islington council is facing 40% cuts over the year. Discretionary funding such as for independent living will be difficult to find.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right. Interestingly, we have cases coming in from all parts of the United Kingdom, which illustrate that the issue is deep-seated in all our communities.

Not only are people in receipt of ILF worried, but their friends, carers and families are too. The cases of two of my constituents illustrate that well. Ashley Harrison, for example, is a Scunthorpe United fan, like me cheering on the Iron at Glanford Park. At 10 months old, he was diagnosed with cerebral palsy; he will turn 30 this year. Ashley has lived in his own bungalow since 2006. The ILF allows him to employ his own team of carers. Ashley is an inspirational man, a fighter, but he is worried about the control over his future being taken away from him. His mother says:

“The closure of the ILF would be nothing less than devastating for us as a family. Since Ashley was awarded his ILF allowance the whole family’s lives have changed for the better. ILF understands Ashley’s needs and always do everything they can to constantly improve Ashley’s life and enable him to live independently.

As a family naturally all we have ever wanted is the best for Ashley, which the ILF has helped us achieve. The ILF has always seemed to be the leading and positive force at meetings ensuring that social services match and meet Ashley’s needs. Without the ILF we all face a very uncertain future. The uncertainty that Ashley faced in his early years prior to receiving his ILF award have been daunting, frustrating and of course a constant battle with social services.

The alleged ‘smooth transfer’ over to social services is already proving to be nothing of the sort. Each and every meeting we hold (which are incredibly frequent) leave us having to justify Ashley’s needs as a disabled person. The assessments they ask us to complete are totally unsuitable for the severely disabled.

All of the disabled people living independently with the help of ILF are living their lives to the full. The fear is that if ILF closes these people will lose their human rights and dignity to live their lives as they should.

As a mother who has fought the last 30 years for Ashley to have the life he wants and of course deserves, I dread to think what the next generation of disabled people will have to endure without the positive support of the ILF.

I beg you to listen to myself as a mother of a disabled son and also listen to all those disabled voices who deserve to be heard.

Give each and every person the ability to live and achieve their dreams just as you and I can.

The Paralympics just proves how amazing disabled people can be!”

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am sure everyone will be moved by that testimony. It is an irony that, in my constituency, some recipients of ILF are among the most active people in the community, whether they are working, doing sport in the community or promoting disability rights. Debbie Domb and Kevin Caulfield are two of the most active people in my constituency, and they do a lot of positive good. The removal of ILF will be bad not just for them, but for my community as a whole.

[Nic Dakin]

I absolutely agree.

Let me move on to my second constituent, Jon Clayton, who illustrates what my hon. Friend said. He also receives ILF. Like Ashley, he employs carers who understand his disability. His sister writes:

“My brother Jon is quadriplegic, having been involved in an accident which was not his fault at the age of 18. He is now 54.

He is one of life’s truly inspirational people; an accomplished mouth artist—a gift he only knew he had after his life changing accident—living independently in his own home. He freely gives his time mentoring other disabled persons, helping them come to terms with another life. A life without limbs. A life without walking.

He has always sought to live as normal a life as possible. Having gone through marriage, divorce, being a step father, losing a partner.

He is both ordinary and extraordinary.

He relies heavily on his full time carers. Carers who he personally has ensured are trained to an appropriate and exceptional level to look after a person with specific and defined needs. One false move and he could (and has) spent 18 months bed bound with a pressure sore at the expense of some ill trained nurse.

His carers are trusted to ensure and give a high level of care, entrusted with the most personal of tasks from catheter changing, toileting, dressing…This has been part of Jon’s life since his accident. Something he has taken on with humour and dignity.

If the ILF is removed Jon will be unable to live independently. Being able to engage in what you and I would consider a normal life. He will be unable to travel, have holidays, visit family, visit friends.

The ILF has enabled independence. Given life, where life seemed over.

I would therefore urge you to do all you can to prevent this life enabling function—the ILF—from being eroded.”

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

Does my hon. Friend think it is a disgrace that, last month, when people such as his constituent turned up at Tothill street, the doors of the Department for Work and Pensions were locked against them? Those people simply wanted to hand a letter in to the Minister’s office, but no one was available, and I had to take the letter in by the back door.

[Nic Dakin]

I am sure all those who turned up to present the letter will want to thank my hon. Friend for carrying out that duty on their behalf. Obviously, it would have been much better had they been able to access the Department themselves, and I am sure the Minister and his colleagues will reflect on that. Sometimes these things happen, sadly, but the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s concern, and I am sure he will want to address it.

A fundamental concern for Jon, Ashley and others is whether they will be able to employ their specialist staff in future. The question was raised with North Lincolnshire council, which responded on 9 June 2014 with these words, which are rather bureaucratic:

“We appreciate this situation may cause you concern as an existing Independent Living Fund customer and would wish to reduce any worry or anxiety you may have.

Allocation of future monies will be based on your updated assessment and support plan and on future Local Authority funding so at this stage we cannot give any specific guidance on the amount of monies that you may receive from us or cannot give guarantees on the future employment status of any Personal Assistants you may currently employ.”

As hon. Members can imagine, such “reassurances” serve only to heighten anxiety and build mistrust.

I return to my central question: will the Government guarantee that Ashley, Jon and all those currently receiving ILF will not lose their independence as a result of the Government’s decision to close the fund? I believe that that decision is aimed at saving money, but it might end up costing far more in other budget areas, such as health.

A better way forward would be for the Government to engage with ILF recipients—they clearly had an opportunity to do so recently when my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) went with recipients to the DWP—to learn from their experience and to find ways of shaping future services that are cost-effective, but that continue to deliver true independence.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another profoundly worrying aspect is that the coalition Government have been in situ for four years? The worry he describes has been expressed by my constituents Rosemary and David Burslem for four years, but it is still unresolved. What we are seeing from the Government is a hospital pass to other people, who will have to make the difficult decisions the Government have deliberately left for four years and have now misjudged.

[Nic Dakin]

That is why I keep repeating my question to the Minister. This is happening on his watch; he is a good Minister, and he is a man who, I believe, cares, but he cannot wash his hands, like Pontius Pilate, of the future of these individuals. He needs to nail his colours to the mast, and today he has an opportunity to do that by guaranteeing that, as a result of the Government’s decision, there will be no detriment to people currently receiving ILF. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that people have been living with this worry and concern for the past four years, which has affected the health and well-being not only of ILF recipients, but their families, friends and carers.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of all users of the ILF. Does he agree that it is not surprising they are concerned about the impact of the closure, given that the Department’s own equality impact assessment says it will be for individual local authorities

“to determine how to allocate the funding transferred to them…This is likely to have an adverse effect on ILF users because of monetary reductions in the amount of support a person receives and because of changes in how that support is delivered”?

When the Government’s own equality impact assessment tells them the closure will have that impact, they must surely respond.

[Nic Dakin]

That is deeply worrying, as my hon. Friend says. That is why it is good the Minister has the opportunity today to give people those guarantees and reassurances and to address the concerns raised by the Government’s own impact assessment.

Disabled People Against Cuts points out that, for the 17,500 people in receipt of ILF,

“the closure of the Fund will have a devastating impact on the lives on these individuals and their families. It also has a much wider significance because at the heart of this is the fundamental question of disabled people’s place in society: do we want a society that keeps its disabled citizens out of sight, prisoners in their own homes or locked away in institutions, surviving not living or do we want a society that enables disabled people to participate, contribute and enjoy the opportunities, choice and control that non-disabled people”—

like us—“take for granted?”

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ILF has proved to be a source of social and economic emancipation on an extra-statutory basis? No other scheme delivered by government—local or otherwise—could do that. The ILF has developed a specialism, an insight and a sensitivity that cannot be replaced by anything else.

[Nic Dakin]

That is an excellent point; the support provided by the specialists who understand the area of work has been transformational. The independent living fund was a visionary way forward for disabled people. It would be worse than a sadness—it would be a tragedy for us all—if the Government, in pursuit of micro-benefits, were to lose for society a macro-benefit. We cannot wash our hands of what happens, and that is why we are here today, arguing on behalf of disabled people and the recipients of the ILF. Let us consider the words of Mahatma Ghandi:

“The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest members.”

People like Jon and Ashley are not weak but strong; but the ILF gives them independence, and liberates their strengths. Now is the Minister’s opportunity to guarantee that their future independence will not be compromised by the closure of the ILF.

11:19

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing, and colleagues on taking the time to take part in, this short debate. I suppose that most people will know me by now, and know that I will answer questions as directly as possible; where I cannot answer I will, obviously, write back.

Can I guarantee that no one in receipt of ILF money today will be adversely affected by the changes that we are going to make? No, I cannot, and no Minister of any colour or persuasion could. I want to highlight one point: in July 2010 the scheme closed to new entries. People who have needed the sort of support that ILF has been giving since 1988 have, since 2010, been getting it from local authorities. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made a point about waiting four years. One of the reasons was the delay when we were taken to court—and it is a democratic right for that to happen. The court made a decision, interestingly enough, not on what we were doing, but on process—on whether there was enough evidence that we had taken the Equality Act 2010 into consideration. I was appointed to my present portfolio almost in the same week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) asked whether the issue was about process and who was delivering the help, or about whether we can get the help to the people who deserve it, such as the constituents of the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, and others whom I met in my constituency last night, who talked pragmatically about the future of ILF, and how the scheme will work. Most—nearly all, I think—local authorities are now in the transitional process with us. Following the court ruling, once I announced my decision that we would be going ahead—it appears I may be challenged on that as well—I looked specifically at the process, not at the decision that had already been made. In 2015, we will be transferring all the funding—it is not a cut—that was in ILF.

[Nic Dakin]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

Bear with me: I am very short of time and I did a deal with the hon. Gentleman before we started that I would take less time so that other hon. Members could intervene. If the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me now, it will make it difficult. I am more than happy to write to him on any issue if he wants me to.

I understand fully people’s concerns about the change in practice; those concerns arise with any change affecting any benefit, but there really should not be concern. The people who now deliver the care to people in the community are exactly the same as those who will deliver the version of the ILF that is provided in the future. All that I can try to do is ensure that we monitor what happens as carefully as possible, to see that people’s rights and needs are met as the scheme is transferred out. It is important that none of us underestimates the skill and dedication of the people who go out to do the reviews. I have a team in London. Obviously a certain salami-slicing goes on; we want to try to get that money down and into the system, so there are the same people doing assessments. Will some of those assessments have to be tweaked, over a period of time? Absolutely, they will be, and we will help. We will give as much assistance as we can with that.

I want to touch on what the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) said about the delegation to the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sure that it was peaceful, well-mannered and nice, but that is not always the case. If the hon. Lady looks at the side of the building she will see that paint has been thrown over it, and there have been nasty incidents outside. If she wants to come to see me privately I shall talk about that. That is why the security people were there: we do not know what will happen until people turn up. If I had been there, I would have met the hon. Lady. She knows my door is always open. I have seen her, and if she wants me in future to meet a group of the people who were with her, I shall be more than happy to do that, but there have been nasty incidents and the security situation is understandable. The hon. Lady frowns at me, but those things have happened—she just needs to take a look at the side of the building.

[Mrs Glindon]

It is just that I cannot hear the Minister.

[Mike Penning]

Okay, I will shout; but there was certainly no slight intended to the hon. Lady or the people with her. Security make the decision, and like all Ministers I must bear with them on that. I would obviously meet at any time and place.

The subject is enormously emotive and important, but we must not make assumptions about what will happen. My reason for thinking that we can have some confidence is that the scheme has been closed since 2010, so people with exactly the same needs as the people we have heard about in the debate have had them met by the new system. They have been helped by it. It is vital not to have a two-tier system, as we do at the moment. People who have needed a version of the ILF since 2010 have had that from the local authorities, but people such as those I met last night, who are on the scheme, are having their assessments, and the change is taking place. Did families say to me yesterday that some of the questions seemed bizarre, given the disabilities of the person concerned? Yes—and I am taking that issue up. Colleagues may want to liaise with me and work with me; I think that is the key to this.

I will be honest and frank: the scheme is closed to new entries and the money will go out to local authorities. We will monitor what happens very carefully. Will there be teething problems? Yes. Will there be issues to do with the forms? Yes. However, I think we desperately need to get away from the process and from thinking that my Department, or a part of it, is the best place from which to bring a benefit right into the communities and to the individuals who need it. That is not the case. I came new to this.

[Ian Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I will give way, though I promised I would not.

[Ian Lucas]

I am grateful. Does the Minister agree that because new entrants since 2010 will come within the scheme, and the budget that he transfers will be the same as it is now, inevitably people who are now receiving money from the ILF will have their income reduced?

[Mike Penning]

No. I completely do not agree with that logic. I know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. [Interruption.] He can shake his head as much as he likes, but I am always honest and straight. Do I agree with him? No, I do not, and the reason is that those people are already being helped. Those who were in the scheme, who have come in since July 2010, are already being helped by the money that is in the local authority part, not by the money that is coming across from us. The money that is coming across with the ILF is the funding that sits with the ILF now. That is how it is, and we may have to disagree. If I am wrong factually, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and tell him.

[Nic Dakin]

Will the Minister ring-fence that money, then?

[Mike Penning]

I do not have powers to ring-fence it, and we have had such debates before. It was a Treasury decision not to ring-fence money that is to go down to local authorities in that way. I am bound by that, and I agree with that.

An important point is that we are not just going to give the money to local authorities and say, “That local authority is doing really well, but we know that one is doing really badly, and we are just going to let it get on and do that.” As the disabilities Minister, I will want to publish a league table showing how it is being done, and which local authorities are good.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I have one minute, so no.

[Barbara Keeley]

Briefly.

[Mike Penning]

I am not going to give way.

It is really important that we all participate and make sure as best we can that the system works. It appears to be working. There will be anomalies, and I am sure that tomorrow morning my postbag will be full of letters from people saying they have joined the scheme since 2010 and it has not worked. As yet I have not found that, but I am sure I will. It is an enormously emotive and important subject, but those are people I desperately want to help. That is why I am doing this job. I would not do it for any other reason.

Do I think the scheme will help? Yes. Do I think that localism is better than a top-down approach? Yes, I do. I understand the concerns; but let us see how things roll out. Let us look carefully at the work that has been done since 2010 for the people who did not join the scheme but have gone into local authorities. Some of the scare stories that are out there, especially in some parts of the press, and from some lobby groups, are unfounded. I think that we can move forward, subject, of course, to what happens in the courts in the next few months.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Melbourne Declaration on Diabetes

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr William McCrea in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, for what I think is the first time.

Diabetes is the fastest-growing health threat in the UK, the EU and across the globe. I will first talk a little about what diabetes is. It is a condition in which there is too much glucose in the blood because the body cannot use it properly. That happens because the pancreas does not produce any insulin, or does not produce enough, or because the insulin it produces is unable to work properly. That is a problem because insulin is the key that unlocks the door to the body’s cells so that glucose can enter them. Diabetes means that the body is unable to use glucose as fuel; instead, it builds up in the blood.

There are two main types of diabetes, type 1 and type 2. They are different conditions with different causes; the treatments can be different as well. Both types are serious, lifelong conditions that can lead to devastating complications if they are not managed well, but with the right treatment and support people with diabetes can reduce their risk of developing such complications.

People with type 1 diabetes cannot produce insulin. About 10% of people with diabetes have type 1; I myself have had type 1 diabetes for nearly a quarter of a century, and I am still here. No one knows exactly what causes it, but it is not to do with being overweight and it is not currently preventable. It usually affects children and young adults, starting suddenly and getting worse quickly.

People with type 2 diabetes do not produce enough insulin or else the insulin they produce does not work properly. About 85% to 90% of people with diabetes have type 2. They might get it because their family history, age or ethnic background put them at increased risk. People are also more likely to get type 2 if they are overweight. It starts gradually, usually later in life, and it can be years before people realise they have it.

There are of course exceptions with both types: there are people who have got type 1 quite late in life and there are quite young people, including children, who have type 2, which is not always the consequence of the weight a person is carrying at the time of diagnosis. As with all things, the exceptions mean it is difficult to make a comprehensive diagnosis of what is happening, precisely why it is happening and how it can be prevented.

In the UK, around 3.2 million people have diabetes, and the condition costs the NHS over £10 billion a year. Within the EU as a whole, one in 12 adults have diabetes, and one in three people with the condition apparently do not know that they have it. In this country we have done a lot of work on trying to find what was referred to as the missing million—the people who have diabetes but had not been diagnosed. I believe the figure is now around 750,000, so around 250,000 people have been diagnosed as a result of greater awareness. I will be referring to that a little later.

According to the International Diabetes Federation, globally there are 382 million people with diabetes, a figure that is expected to rise to 592 million by 2035. The number of people with type 2 diabetes is increasing in every country in the world, and 80% of people with the condition live in low and middle-income countries. The greatest number of people with diabetes are between 40 and 59 years of age, and diabetes caused 5.1 million deaths in 2013. A really frightening statistic is that every six seconds a person dies from diabetes somewhere in the world. It is a global problem—a global pandemic—and requires a global response.

That is really what the Melbourne declaration on diabetes was all about. Parliamentarians representing 50 different countries came together to talk about what was happening in their countries and what the problems were, and to discuss how we could co-operate better. We recognised that many bodies work transnationally: patient bodies, medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies all meet regularly on a transnational basis. One group that does not is parliamentarians, yet it is the parliamentarians who can initiate debates, vote on budgets, raise awareness and put pressure on Governments in a way that other bodies cannot. In a sense, the parliamentarians are the missing link.

The aim was to bring those parliamentarians together to work together to commit themselves to be advocates in the fight against diabetes and to recognise the global challenge. Those who attended committed themselves to raising the profile and working for the benefit of people with diabetes wherever they live in the world. Since the declaration was signed, over 100 parliamentarians have signed up as members and many more have declared themselves supporters. Two newsletters have been published and are hosted on the International Diabetes Federation website, a Twitter account is now active, and debates have occurred in Russia, Bolivia, Malta, Kenya, Scotland and now here today in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

There are so many issues to address. One is prevention. Far more needs to be done on that. We may have reduced the number who are missing their diagnosis, but there are still 750,000 people out there with diabetes whose condition will develop and whose cost to the health service will increase the longer they go undiagnosed. Health education is vital, to make people aware of the risks involved. We also need information out there to combat people’s fears that if they are diabetic they will have to inject themselves with needles all their lives. Only 10% of people with diabetes are type 1 and have to take insulin subcutaneously by injection—believe me, when someone is confronted with the fact that they have to inject themselves with a needle or they are going to die, they no longer worry about injecting themselves with a needle—so 90% of people with diabetes do not have to worry about that. They can be treated by diet and tablet, and different regimes.

There is still a stigma. There are Members of this place who have diabetes but do not want other people to know about it, although it is good that increasingly Members are prepared to come forward. The situation is the same in other professions. One great thing the all-party group on diabetes achieved was a change of policy in the police, the ambulance service and the fire service: people who admitted that they had diabetes were being retired immediately, but now instead they are given individual annual medical assessments to see what they can and cannot do. Sacking people simply because of a condition seems such an obvious injustice, especially as many of them can control that condition and hold down their job as well as any other person so long as they are monitored and have that medical assessment.

Prevention will save millions. There is no doubt that the bulk of the cost of diabetes to health care systems is at the point when the complications come in and a person with diabetes has to be hospitalised. It is an interesting phenomenon that people with diabetes stay longer in hospital beds than people without it. That includes people who have been admitted to hospital for something that has absolutely nothing to do with their diabetes, or who have come in for elective surgery. The change of environment on going into hospital disables them in terms of being able to control their condition. Increasingly now, many hospitals are saying that, as people with diabetes basically self-medicate 365 days of the year, if they go into hospital, they may as well carry on self-medicating, because they know their body better than the health service is likely to.

The savings to the health service from prevention are quite phenomenal. Early diagnosis is also important, as it reduces complications, so we need to encourage people to come forward and be tested. That is linked to the need for education and information so that people do not fear being tested or being diagnosed with the condition.

Sadly, many people with the condition are not getting the checks that they are supposed to get from our health service. Diabetes UK has taken that up and argues that everyone should be entitled to 15 checks whenever they go to their GP for an annual check-up. The fact that they are not getting all 15 checks suggests that something is not working correctly in the system. Some GP practices are excellent, but others are not so good and we must ensure that everyone gets the minimum 15 checks.

The pump device for those who are insulin-dependent is a small device about the size of a pager. It is attached to the patient and provides insulin doses, almost mimicking the pancreas. It is a very good regime, particularly for children who do not want the paraphernalia of injection pens and so on. They can enjoy a life in which other children do not recognise that the diabetic is different. They must still check their blood sugar, but we are looking and hoping for the development of a single device that both tests blood and injects insulin, completely mimicking the pancreas. It is out there, but it is not yet widely available. The cost must come down and more testing is needed, but that is the future. People must live with diabetes now and the level of pump prescribing here is well below that in other EU countries. Any child who is diagnosed with diabetes should be automatically put on a pump unless there is an objection. It is the obvious way to get a child to control their condition early and to enable them to enjoy their life along with other children of the same age.

The treatment of people in care with diabetes leaves a lot to be desired, and a lot more needs to be done in the various care inspection regimes to ensure that people with diabetes who go into residential or nursing care are properly looked after.

There are questions about research. Are we spending enough on research on a cure? Are we researching better conditions and finding the best treatment regimes for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes?

Children with diabetes must be supported in school and I hope that the Children and Families Act 2014 will go some way to helping parents with some of the problems. Some schools have refused to deal with a child with diabetes or to help them to test their blood sugar levels and take their insulin. Some schools insist that a parent must be in attendance at the school, which often means taking someone out of a job to be a full-time carer of their child with diabetes in school. Surely that is not desirable.

There are complications with transition when children move from primary school to secondary school, and then to university. They often have to deal with three health care regimes: paediatrics, adult care and student care services. Problems often arise as a consequence of those transitions.

I mentioned discrimination in the workplace in relation to blue light services. We were able to campaign against that to help to tackle it. That discrimination is still out there. People must have the courage to come forward in cases where there has been discrimination on the grounds that they have diabetes. There is probably much better understanding now in the workplace about diabetes, but there are still pockets of ignorance that need to be tackled.

All that occurs in the UK, with its well-developed health care service, many aspects of which are the envy of other countries. The Commonwealth study that has come out this week shows that the UK health service is at No. 1. That is testament to everyone who works in the health care service. They deserve our congratulations on delivering such a fantastic service cost-effectively for the majority of people who need to access services. I may list a whole load of issues and problems, but it would be wrong to be all doom and gloom and to think that we are lagging behind. We are way ahead, but we want to be even further ahead and to bring other countries up to our level. We must and can do more.

Internationally, the 66th World Health Assembly adopted a global target to halt the rise of diabetes and obesity by 2025. Every nation needs a national strategy and action plan to prevent and manage the diabetes pandemic. It is unfortunate that we no longer have a national service framework for diabetes in this country. The Government should think again about that because without a national plan and national strategy, it is difficult to determine whether we are achieving what we want to achieve in terms of reducing the number of people with diabetes, diagnosing those who have the condition and ensuring that treatment is as good as the best anywhere in the UK.

The Parliamentarians for Diabetes Global Network, which was set up through the Melbourne declaration, can help to facilitate the objective that the World Health Organisation has laid down for health care systems around the world. The network’s priority in its early years will be to build a coalition of advocates for action to prevent the pandemic at local, regional, national and transnational levels, with the focus on raising the matter in Parliaments and Assemblies across the globe to spread better understanding and awareness of diabetes and the urgency with which it needs to be addressed.

Following the declaration and events in Parliaments around the world, the ExPAND Policy Toolkit for Diabetes has gone live and will greatly assist the aims of the declaration. It is a practical guide to help diabetes advocates to challenge national Governments and to raise the profile of diabetes. It is the first comprehensive resource aimed specifically at helping MPs and other policy makers to shape and influence national policy to ensure that we prepare our health care systems for the challenges of the 21st century. With input from parliamentarians for parliamentarians, it provides a one-stop resource covering the economic case for investment, evidence of what works and best practice from across Europe, as well as practical steps for leading and developing new policies on diabetes that are fit for purpose. Key topics include prevention, self-management, innovation and person-centred care. There are also dedicated chapters on the care and treatment of children and older people. It is hosted on the International Diabetes Federation’s website and is available for any parliamentarians who want to avail themselves of its usefulness. The toolkit was the result of more than a year’s work by a network of parliamentarians, patient representatives and other opinion formers from across Europe.

The Melbourne declaration is a clarion call for action across the world and the ExPAND Policy Toolkit for Diabetes is a resource to turn words into action, but we also need momentum to reach that tipping point where no one questions why the global pandemic of diabetes receives priority attention for resources to prevent, to diagnose and to treat the condition.

14:48

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak about diabetes. I am a type 2 diabetic, so the matter is important to me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on securing the debate. I know of his passion for the subject, and it is always good to participate in a debate initiated by him. I hope that others will contribute and help him to pursue his ideas. I am fully behind the Melbourne declaration on diabetes. I am delighted at the attention the illness is receiving, and I look forward to great steps being taken to curb the effect of diabetes in our country and the world.

Many people have referred to diabetes as a ticking time bomb. We focus on many diseases, such as cancer and heart disease, in that way. Diabetes is a ticking time bomb because of the numbers of people who have it and do not know, or who will potentially be diabetic in the near future. I am sure that we are all very aware that it is estimated that there are 382 million people worldwide with diabetes, most of whom are aged between 40 and 59. Again, that middle-aged group is where the focus seems to be, and their number is expected to rise to 592 million by 2035. For one second, consider again that the figure will rise from 382 million to 592 million by 2035—another 200 million people will be diabetics by that time.

In 2013, diabetes caused 5.1 million deaths, which is one every six seconds. That is the magnitude of the issue of diabetes and what it is doing and has the potential to do. In world monetary terms, diabetes is taking up some $548 billion in health spending in 2013, right across the world. That is 11% of worldwide expenditure. Those figures get into what it means to be diabetic, and why the condition is a ticking time bomb not only for the United Kingdom, but for the world. The statistics are harrowing. It is an international problem. It is a disease that we are often too blasé about, and we must not let this dire situation continue. We must adequately assess the issue of diabetes and tackle the problem head-on.

I want to mention our colleague, Edwin Poots, the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland. He has initiated a programme to bring in 400 insulin pumps to help type 1 diabetics and their families. He has also initiated training along with that, so that people who have the pumps are adequately trained in administering the insulin, and in helping the control of diabetes. Good things have been done in Northern Ireland, but good things have been done in England as well. As the Minister will know, I ask all the time about a strategy, not only regionally, but for the whole United Kingdom.

Obesity and diabetes-related illnesses combined cost the NHS an estimated £15 billion a year, and 80% of the available funding for diabetes is spent on treating preventable complications, because it is not diabetes that will eventually, to use strong terms, kill someone, but the complications. It can affect people’s kidneys, liver, circulation, heart and eyesight.

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

While my hon. Friend is on the issue of the cost to the NHS and to all of us as taxpayers, does he agree that any additional resource that is deployed in early detection, and in trying to ensure greater awareness in communities across the UK, will vastly be outweighed by the savings, in terms of what the taxpayer would have to pay out otherwise? That has been outlined by both the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) and by my hon. Friend.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that comment. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to some issues that I feel the Government need to address early on. He is correct to say that vast savings will be made if there is early detection. The need for early detection was mentioned by the hon. Member for Torbay, and other Members will make the same comment.

Although it is great that money is available to treat this illness, we must not merely chase after it, putting a plaster on it after it has inflicted damage. That is clear. We need to ensure that money is spent not only on treating it, but on prevention methods—which makes me wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) was looking over my shoulder at my notes, because he made the next point that I was coming to. We cannot allow ourselves to accept the fact that 3.2 million people in the UK have been diagnosed with diabetes. Again, that is the magnitude of the problem. We must look to the causes and stamp them out at the root.

One thing that we can address is the preventive measures that need to be taken. We have talked many times in the House about the sugar content in food. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is not here today, introduced a measure, which I was happy to put my name to, addressing the issues of sugar in manufactured products that we eat. We need to take that issue forward, and in the future, I hope we will be in a position to take legislation on that subject through the House with the support of food manufacturers, so that we can address the issue of the food we eat. We do not need all the sugar or salt that is in food. There is a way of addressing issues outside the Chamber—issues that are outside Government control—but something needs to be done at a manufacturing level.

Our annual intake of sugar is 33.7 kg per capita. To put that in perspective, it is equivalent to eating nearly 34 average-sized bags of sugar each year. Imagine if the sugar was piled up on the table here; it would block my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry from sight completely. That is how much sugar we are all eating every year, and some people even eat more. Surely when discussing the Melbourne declaration on diabetes, the Government need to take another look at sugar levels in our food. What steps are the Government taking on diabetes prevention to ensure that the next generation is not blighted by diabetes in the way that this one is? Projections show that if current trends continue, in 2025, 5 million people in the UK will have diabetes. Again, the magnitude of the issue is clear, so what are the Government doing to ensure that that does not happen? What preventive measures are they putting in place to decrease that number?

The correlation between weight and diabetes has been made clear: 80% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese. The Government need to do more to increase education on the danger of being overweight or obese and tighten controls on how much sugar goes into our food. Those are all issues that I feel we need to take on board.

What is so frustrating is that up to 80% of type 2 diabetes could be delayed or prevented. I am not saying that in any judgmental way, because many in the Chamber will be aware that I am a type 2 diabetic, as I declared at the beginning of my speech. The truth of the matter is that I have to blame myself and my lifestyle choices for the onset of the disease. It was the Chinese carry-out five nights a week, with two bottles of Coke—not a good diet for anybody. That is the reason why I was almost 18 stone and had to lose weight very quickly. Aside from that, it was also a lifestyle with high levels of stress. When the two are combined, diabetes will knock on the door of nearly everybody, as most of us know.

While I am on the subject, many people can be diabetic even though they are not necessarily overweight. It can happen through them having a stressful lifestyle. How many others living the same lifestyle are not aware of the damage that they are doing to their bodies in the long term, and how can we do better in highlighting that? I have to take two Metformin tablets in the morning and two at night. That dosage could have to be increased; a doctor could come along, as he often does, and say “By the way, you just need a wee blood pressure tablet now to keep you right as well.” People wonder just how many tablets they will have to take before they reach the age of 65 and retire, if they are spared until that age.

What are the Government doing to diagnose diabetes early and treat it effectively, preventing or delaying the complications that cause so much human suffering, require costly treatment, and reduce life expectancy? Only one in 10 people who are newly diagnosed with diabetes are offered education on how to manage their condition, despite strong evidence that education is a cost-effective way of giving people the knowledge that they need to manage their condition. On managing diabetes, after someone is diagnosed as diabetic, what help is given to them to ensure that they manage that in a sensible way? I accept that the person also needs to acknowledge that they have to manage the condition. I remember Dr Mageean, my doctor, telling me when I was first diagnosed, “Jim, it is up to you what you do.” He was very clear and said, “You must manage this yourself,” but at the same time, I think we need a wee bit of help, perhaps from Government and from the health service in particular, just to ensure that we know what that all means for everyone involved.

It is estimated that in my small Province of Northern Ireland, 80,000 people have diabetes. That awful statistic worries me very much.

[Mr Sanders]

The point about education is interesting. According to the National Audit Office, the estimated amount that the NHS could save annually through people better understanding and managing diabetes is £170 million. That is just from improved awareness and education.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry and by me: prevention saves money for the NHS. I accept that the Minister’s budget is restricted, and that we cannot spend outside of that, but if there are ways and means of reducing the money that is spent and ensuring that we can still deliver the NHS that we are all very proud of, we should try to do that as well.

On 12 February 2014, I asked the Minister what discussions had been had with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland on UK-wide strategies for diabetes, obesity, heart disease and rare diseases. The Minister said that there had been no discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive on those issues. I am asking that question again, as she is here. I respect her greatly—she knows that—and I value the work that she carries out in this place, but I honestly believe that a UK-wide strategy is needed. We had one until 2013, but then it was not carried on. I believe that it would be to the benefit of all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if that UK-wide strategy was started again, so I ask the question again.

There is cross-House approval of and support for the Melbourne declaration on diabetes, which pushed for an international effort in the fight against diabetes, and that is what this is all about. Are the Government willing to work with the devolved Administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to use resources wisely and create a UK-wide strategy against diabetes? They have done it before; let us do it again, and do it even better this time.

The director of Diabetes UK Northern Ireland, Iain Foster, has said:

“We are in the middle of a diabetes epidemic…With the numbers rapidly increasing it is now more important than ever that everything is done to prevent serious complications which cost the NHS millions”—

as the hon. Member for Torbay said—

“and are absolutely devastating for the individuals and families involved.”

Let us never forget that it is not just those with diabetes but the families around them who are affected by the debilitating effects of diabetes on the individual.

Will the Government commit to implementing fully the NHS health check, which should be offered to everyone aged 40 to 74, to help identify people at high risk of type 2 diabetes? I say with respect that that programme has been patchily introduced so far, so there could be a lot of improvement. The Government need to do more to ensure that those at high risk benefit from lifestyle interventions to help to prevent the disease. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended increasing the proportion of people with diabetes who get the nine annual checks. That should happen as a matter of course when people are in their GP surgery, or in hospital for whatever reason.

Those checks help people to manage their condition and to identify any signs of complications early. However, there is a large geographical variation in the proportion of people getting them. Again, if we had a UK-wide strategy, we could ensure that there were no differences geographically in who gets the nine annual checks and who does not. Will the Government commit to increasing the number of people who receive the checks? That is a positive way forward. It is another way of doing the preventive work that we need, and will ultimately lead to the savings that we need.

In 1922, insulin was discovered by John Macleod, Dr Banting and Charles Best, yet 92 years later, in 2014, we are still fighting against the dreadful disease of diabetes. In the UK this year, 59,000 people will die unnecessarily from diabetes. I strongly urge the Government, in the wake of the Melbourne declaration on diabetes, to take serious strides in the UK in preventing and controlling diabetes.

15:00

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

It is, as usual, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr Sanders) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hon. Member for Torbay, in particular, has been making a superb contribution across this entire policy area for many years. As someone who is also “blessed” with type 1 diabetes, I look to him for inspiration, and he readily provides it on a regular basis. I cannot thank him enough for introducing a debate in this House on this subject yet again. His work as chair of the all-party group on diabetes, as president of the Parliamentarians for Diabetes Global Network and in the Global Parliamentary Champions for Diabetes Forum is commendable. His position and work there mean that the UK can be a world leader in ensuring high-quality treatments and support for those with diabetes. I am very sincere in all those comments. They are heartfelt.

The hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject in April, in a debate to which I contributed. He raised some very important issues, not least of which was the importance of an approach that respects the distinction between causes and treatments of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In opening today’s debate, he has again raised matters of the utmost importance and concern, which I will also touch on.

The Melbourne declaration on diabetes was formally adopted on 2 December 2013, as we have heard, at the first Global Parliamentary Champions for Diabetes Forum. The declaration contains eight action points for parliamentarians, including encouraging the creation and adoption of a national plan that acknowledges that diabetes is a national health priority and that leads to action. I will focus my remarks today on the need to create an action plan. I hope that the Minister, whom I welcome to her place, can confirm that the Government are committed to that, especially given the clear will of parliamentarians from those parties that have contributed today, although I know from discussions and conversations with colleagues right across the House that there is a clear understanding of the need to support an action plan as a way forward.

There are more than 380 million people with diabetes in the world, and that figure is expected to reach almost 600 million by 2035. That is deeply worrying. In the UK, 3.2 million people are living with diabetes. That includes almost 35,000 children. One pound in every £10 spent by the NHS is spent on treating diabetes and the complications that arise from it. We have heard an awful lot about the economic and financial modelling of the effects of diabetes on the NHS. I think that we need to spend more time on that as a country. Diabetes UK says that diabetes is responsible for 20,000 premature deaths each year, and that 80% of cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented or delayed. Let us just think about that: 80% of cases could be prevented or delayed. The financial savings that we could make, irrespective of the improvements that we could make to the lives of those people who go on to develop type 2 diabetes, are phenomenal.

We must always be aware of the distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Type 1 is a chronic, life-threatening condition that affects 400,000 people in the UK, including 29,000 children. Type 1, as we have heard, is not caused by lifestyle factors such as obesity, lack of exercise or poor diet. I should know, and I never resist the temptation to remind people that I did the London marathon earlier this year. Thanks go to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, if its representative is in the room. I want to do it again next year, by the way. Whereas those with type 2 diabetes can sometimes be treated with a change in diet and exercise and modest medication, those with type 1 diabetes need multiple insulin injections or pump infusions every day. I did mine before the debate started. My blood glucose level was 14.7, which is not particularly good—I will be getting told off for that.

Each year, a person with type 1 diabetes will undertake more than 2,000 finger-prick blood tests, have 1,500 insulin injections and count the carbohydrates in more than 1,000 meals. It is clear that any action plan will have to develop coherent and effective strategies for both conditions. A one-size-fits-all strategy simply will not do, so I hope that the Minister can reassure us today that she will not be cutting corners. Any plan must be workable and tailored to meet the specific needs of both conditions.

Diabetes UK has done excellent work, as always, on this matter. Its briefing in advance of today’s debate was superb. It endorses the view that there is a clear need for a national action plan. It has identified five key areas that must be included. Those are improvement in support for self-management; integration of care; improving safety; a focus on children and young people with diabetes; and prevention of type 2 diabetes. I am sure that if the Government introduced a comprehensive action plan built on those five principles, it would receive the support of the entire House.

Starting with self-management, it is obviously crucial that individuals and their families can successfully manage their condition, and the keystone of that is effective care planning and education. Positive care planning and strong education can ensure that an individual is equipped with the tools and resources needed effectively to manage their condition. Diabetes UK calculates that each year, care in a clinical setting totals about three hours, whereas self-care accounts for almost 9,000 hours. Improving self-management is not optional—it is absolutely essential. I appreciate that it could be culturally difficult for us to achieve that as a Parliament and a country, but it is something we absolutely need to crack.

Opposition Members have long advocated the benefits of integrated care across the whole NHS. With diabetes, a person will routinely have contact with many parts of the wider health care system, such as primary, community and secondary care. To improve integration, Diabetes UK has identified five key points that would, in effect, provide an integrated diabetes care pathway. Such a pathway would require strong networks of clinicians, commissioners and patients, a more integrated system of commissioning services, better information-sharing across services and the improving of skills in primary care, all of which should be overseen by effective clinical governance. Those actions are not out of reach, and the Government could easily ensure that they are part of any action plan.

The third point I want to cover is patient safety. There are major issues regarding the safety of in-patients with diabetes in hospitals. According to research undertaken by Diabetes UK relating to the past year, about 40% of in-patients experienced at least one medication error, more than a fifth experienced one or more hypoglycaemic episodes and fewer than a third were seen by a member of the diabetes team. Those problems can, as the hon. Member for Torbay said, contribute to patients with diabetes having to remain in hospital more than three days longer than patients without diabetes. Again, we should consider the cost implications for the health service in these tough times. Any plan the Government introduce must surely address that, because it is bad for patients, clinicians and the health service.

There must also be space in the Government’s plan to address young people’s experiences. There are 35,000 children with diabetes in the UK, which has the fourth highest number of children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in Europe. Many children and young adults experience a marked deterioration in their care as they make the transition from children’s to adults services. Adolescence is often a time when many lifelong behaviours are established, including those that are health-related, so it is essential that young people can complete the transition at a time that is right for them. A deterioration in care and a forced transition have been shown to disengage young people from the service, resulting in worse outcomes and complications. There is an acute need to address that.

In the last debate on this issue, in April, I referred to support and education for young people, which are key to ensuring that they can manage and cope with their condition. Being diagnosed with any form of diabetes can be overwhelming if the proper support is not in place.

My next point relates to a focus on preventing type 2 diabetes. Recent reports by the British Medical Journal have shown that a third of adults have higher than normal blood glucose levels, which is an indication of pre-diabetes, and many health professionals project that there will be a huge increase in the numbers of those with type 2 diabetes. I am sure that that worries policy makers on both sides of the House, whether on the left or the right or in the centre. As I said, any action plan must take into account the differences between type 1 and type 2. Critically, any strategy for type 2 must be based on prevention.

I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what the Government are doing on the points I have raised, and I would expect her to be able to give us some indication of when they are likely to introduce a plan to address the issue. Given the importance of such a plan, I hope she will make a statement to the House when any plan is published, to give Members who are not present the chance to scrutinise the Government’s proposals. Indeed, I would go further. Every time we have such a debate, it strikes me that there is a real wealth of experience and understanding of these issues across the House. It would, therefore, be a tremendous gesture—not for its own sake, but from the point of view of those living with this condition—if Members who understand type 1 and type 2 diabetes were allowed to contribute their knowledge and experience to the production of a better plan that would better suit those with this condition.

Through the Melbourne declaration, the International Diabetes Foundation makes the incredibly important point that

“disadvantaged people in every country carry the greatest burden”

with regard to diabetes. That is important when looking at the levels of clinical care for diabetics across clinical commissioning groups throughout England. Speaking to diabetics around the country, I have seen for myself that if we are to make self-management as effective as it can be—we have a long way to go on improving not only the culture but the clinical ability of CCGs and other primary care providers regarding self-management—we must make a concerted effort to look at the literacy and numeracy of some of the people with this condition. Every day, before every injection, people must undertake a fairly simple and routine mathematical calculation of their insulin to carbohydrate ratio, but many of them simply cannot do the maths. There is no assistance, tool or device on the market to help them make those calculations simply, so we need to look at that, because it is a big cultural issue. There is an issue with not just numeracy, but literacy, and there are also issues about social exclusion, which I am sure we are all aware of. We need to put some time and effort into understanding and resolving those issues if we are properly to increase self-management among diabetics.

NHS England published “Action for Diabetes” earlier this year, but Diabetes UK said that it was not sufficient and did not present a comprehensive strategy or action plan. I have read it, and I think that is a fair comment. Diabetes desperately needs a national service framework—there are no two ways about that. The service around the country is incredibly patchy when it comes to not just the nine key diabetic tests, but other diabetic support services. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the Government will ensure that CCGs step up to the plate. We really need a detailed plan, and I hope she can tell us when one will be introduced.

Will the Minister also tell us how many diabetics are missing their checks? That information should be understood and collated centrally, because the issue is of strategic national clinical importance. What are the clinical and financial effects on the service of people missing their appointments? We are failing people with diabetes, and that did not begin in 2010.

I touched earlier on self-management, which is incredibly important, but so are innovation and the use of data. For me as a type 1 diabetic, the most important issue in managing my condition is having access to data about it, such as my blood glucose readings and my insulin ratios. We need a framework and a strategy for medical innovation that incorporates diabetes research—from not just a scientific point of view, but a patient’s point of view—in a profound way. How can we become the best country in the world, in terms of medical companies and other pharma-based industries developing new and innovative ways of treating diabetes?

I wear all sorts of devices to monitor my fitness and my sleep—whether it is a Jawbone, a Misfit Shine or a Nike fuelband, believe me, I have them all. The data they capture about the individual is of incredible medical importance. We need, on a cross-party basis, to establish a strategy under which this country can genuinely innovate and become a global leader, with a view to enabling companies to produce the best suite of devices, applications and so on to assist in dealing with type 1 and type 2 diabetics. I look forward to the day when my data can be captured in real time and shared with my GP and my pharmacist, so that I do not have to phone up, text or e-mail to get my insulin prescription. My GP and my pharmacist will have the information and the algorithm, they will know when my prescription needs to be ready and how much I am using, and my doctor will know how I manage my condition. We can hothouse innovation—my office and I are doing an awful lot of work on this—but we need to make that innovation part of not only a national diabetes strategy, but a biotech and medical innovation strategy.

Finally, I say to the Minister that we are here to help. Will she please use the experience that exists across the House and not miss this opportunity to act?

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I want to mention that several Members have apologised for not attending because they are taking part in another debate. They wanted to be here and asked me to pass on their apology to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) and the Minister.

15:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

Thank you, Dr McCrea. I am aware that some colleagues who would normally be with us for a debate on this important topic have been speaking in the main Chamber. No doubt they will catch up with the debate online, at some point. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), who opened the debate, and all those who have spoken. It has been another thoughtful debate on a topic that is very important, as he said. I congratulate him on his recent election as the first president of the Global Parliamentary Champions for Diabetes Forum. I am not sure whether he modestly did not mention that, but I give him credit for it. It is a tribute to his effective championing of the issue, and the global initiative is important.

As my hon. Friend said, we must not underestimate the global threat posed by diabetes. Other hon. Members have mentioned the numbers involved; the International Diabetes Federation estimates that by 2035 there will be 600 million people with diabetes worldwide, which is about one in 10 of the planet’s population. I think that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described that as a ticking time bomb, but the debate has drawn out the fact that for the most part we do not have to accept that as inevitable. There are things that we can do, and it is right that we are beginning to talk about the issue as a global community, in global health terms.

In the UK, 3 million people are affected by diabetes. It is estimated that by 2025 the figure will be 4 million if we do not make progress. We estimate that around 850,000 people have undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. Diabetes is a priority for the Government. We have set clear objectives for the NHS and Public Health England to do more on prevention and to improve the care and management of people with diabetes. I accept that there is a challenge about the need for a national action plan. I have had meetings with Diabetes UK and it is one of the things mentioned in its briefing. We have set up clear objectives for the NHS and Public Health England and we ask them to deliver against those, so my contention is that we do indeed have a national plan, but that we may be carrying it out within a slightly different framework from the one advocated. The degree of priority we give it, and the importance that the Government accord to ensuring that the health and care system work together at all levels to give people with diabetes the care and support they need, should not be underestimated.

I hope that while I have been the Public Health Minister I have reassured colleagues about the personal priority that I give to the issue of diabetes. Indeed, my first public outing, slightly terrifyingly, was to speak to a meeting organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. Almost certainly, everyone in the room knew more than I did about the subject, but I attended to show, very early in my ministerial role, how important the issue was to me.

I have met the national clinical director. I try to have reasonably regular meetings with him, because the issue is such an important one. I have a continuing relationship with the all-party group on diabetes and the other diabetes campaigning groups and Members in the House. With respect to type 1 diabetes, I met my and other Members’ constituents at the JDRF event, which I have attended several times. It is always humbling to meet those fantastic young people who have learned very young to manage and live with a difficult condition.

What is NHS England doing to improve the management and care of people with diabetes? As I mentioned, I have several times met Professor Jonathan Valabhji, the NHS England national clinical director for obesity and diabetes. He has been generous with his time in attending parliamentary events, and is a great supporter of the work of groups and Members in the House. He regularly attends events focused on diabetes and is focused very much on improving outcomes for people with all types of diabetes.

Earlier this year “Action for Diabetes” was published, which describes the actions that NHS England is taking to improve diabetes care. It covers many areas, some of which have been highlighted during the debate, including developing GP contracts and incentives; working with primary care services to trial and roll out case-finding; and decision-support tools to help to detect and diagnose diabetes earlier. A national conversation is also going on about obesity and taking care of one’s own health. Hon. Members have touched on that with regard to the prevention of type 2. Every member of the public is a part of that conversation. We did not talk much about individuals during the debate, but I think we would all agree that we need constantly to emphasise personal responsibility in relation to preventable or avoidable type 2.

I sometimes worry—I talked about this with the head of Diabetes UK shortly after becoming a Minister—that, because few deaths are recorded as being due to diabetes, rather than its complications, there may be a slightly more relaxed attitude among people who think they might develop diabetes, which they would never in a million years have towards a disease such as cancer, which they would immediately identify as a threat. Through debates such as today’s, and the work that we all do, we can emphasise the fact that, although people may not know many people who can be said to have died of diabetes, they will know many whose diabetes contributed to premature death or a long period of ill health. There is more work for us to do, to get that message out. That is how we can empower people to help themselves.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister could not have said a truer word, because many people see diabetes as a disease that they can manage—one that is not too bad. However, she is right: the complications are far reaching and can lead to consequences that are final. In my speech I talked about education, because people must manage the condition themselves, but they need to know what they have to manage. That is my point: some people need the information reinforced, with the seriousness that the Minister expressed.

[Jane Ellison]

That is right. We need to make sure of that. People cannot be empowered without information. We also know, having a duty to address health inequalities, that some people and groups in the community find things much harder. I was taken by some of what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), said about deploying technology more. Work is going on, but I agree with him that we could go further faster with that, to find ways to empower people who may not have a good sense of what to do to take care of their health, and who find it harder than others to obtain the available advice. We must work harder to reach them and I shall talk about NHS health checks in relation to that.

As to the commissioning of integrated care, NHS England is working with other organisations to help to promote services that are integrated around patients’ needs across all settings. There has been much emphasis on that. That body is implementing what it calls a customer service platform to allow patients with diabetes to self-manage, through booking their own appointments, managing their prescriptions, monitoring the care they have received and being able to view their personal health records. That picks up on some of the shadow spokesman’s points.

NHS England has also produced a sample service specification for the management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes that is based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence standards. It provides a model for commissioning integrated care for those with diabetes, and also highlights the specific needs of those with type 1 diabetes, where they differ from the needs of those with type 2. If the current trial of the service specification is successful, it will be offered as a tool that all clinical commissioning groups can choose to use to deliver high-quality care. That is therefore an important piece of work in progress.

There is always a challenge for any of us in making sure that the rest are as good as the best. Occasionally when we talk about the challenges of our current health infrastructure I worry about the assumption that there is a model out there, somewhere, that would absolutely guarantee the delivery of completely consistent care in a given area, across the country. In a country such as ours it is not possible to give such a top-down guarantee. Yes, we must find a way to drive care from the top, with a clear sense of direction from the strategy and mandate that we have given the NHS and Public Health England, but we must also put the tools in the hands of the clinicians, as I have been discussing. Most importantly, we must empower individuals and patients to know what they can expect and to demand good care. Nevertheless, I genuinely do not think that we could devise any system in which we could just issue a notice from the centre to say exactly how care will be delivered consistently across the country. We must find other ways to do it.

[Mr Jamie Reed]

I understand the Minister’s point, but we are talking about nine very simple, fairly cheap tests for people with type 1 diabetes that must be done in a primary care setting by medical professionals. We are talking about blood tests, the blood being processed and the resulting data being made available, all of which are critical to the self-management of the condition. Surely we can insist on those nine tests for every single type 1 diabetic patient.

[Jane Ellison]

I think that the shadow Minister has slightly misunderstood what I said. Those are the tests and that is exactly the standard to which we want everyone to work. What I am saying is that there is no top-down guarantee. We cannot sit in Whitehall and say, “It must be done like this and that is the end of it.” We have said that that is the standard, and NHS England has set a range of other standards, but to deliver that and to drive that consistency of excellence throughout the country requires a range of tools. We must acknowledge that. That is not to say that we accept patchy service—far from it—but we cannot do it with top-down diktat only; we must drive change at all levels of the system and drive towards excellence.

[Mr Sanders]

On that point, there is a difference between a treatment, which must be down to the clinician and what is right for the patient, and tests, which should be the same for everyone. They are just tests that would then dictate the right treatment regime, if additional interventions are required. There ought to be a mechanism to ensure that the tests are consistent for every patient with diabetes in the country, otherwise what is the point of having them?

[Jane Ellison]

I agree. The Government, NHS England and Public Health England are all looking at how we drive that consistency. How do we drive consistent excellence? What tools can we use to do that?

Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave an example. Public Health England is developing a tool to drive improvements in diabetes care and iron out variation. It will be launched later this year, and although I am not able to give much detail now, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay will be interested when it is launched. It will provide a clear picture of how diabetes care and outcomes vary across the country and among practices, which will support decisions on how to make improvements.

The Government have made transparency of data a real priority, and being very transparent about what is being delivered and identifying variation is one of the ways in which we can drive the rest to be as good as the best. I suppose I am trying to explain that, although I could send out a memo tomorrow outlining my national diktat on diabetes, that is not how we drive change. It is crunchy, it is detailed and it is about getting to that local variation and ensuring that we drive up standards in every way possible. That is one of the tools we are developing, but there are others as well.

[Jim Shannon]

In my speech, I called for a strategy that was not just regional but UK-wide, and I hope the Minister can respond to that. Other Members have spoken about the need for an English strategy, but there must also be one for Wales, one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. All four must work together so that we can address the issue together. The Melbourne initiative is very much worldwide, so although people refer to England, we must go further. What are the Government doing to initiate a UK-wide strategy?

[Jane Ellison]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, health is a devolved matter. That is not to say that I am not at all interested in what is going on in Northern Ireland—far from it—but it is nevertheless a devolved matter. As I have said to him in other debates, there is clearly an awful lot that we can learn from each other. People can learn from everything that I report to the House on innovation and the progress that we make in England, as well as, indeed, things that other Health Ministers report from other parts of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I currently have no plan for a UK-wide strategy because health is a devolved matter.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am going to make some progress.

Of course, the fact that health is a devolved matter does not mean that we cannot find areas of joint working, and the Melbourne declaration shows us the way forward on that. That is probably where we end up—the fact that it is devolved does not mean that we cannot share learning and knowledge, learn from one another’s initiatives, or operate in that global context.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope that the Minister will accept that I am not being argumentative, but we had a UK-wide strategy until 2013—last year—so we have shown that we can work together. All I am asking really is: why do we not initiate a similar plan to what was there before 2013—a 10-year plan that started in 2003—and have the four regions work together? That is exactly what the Melbourne initiative is about, and we could do it because we have done it before.

[Jane Ellison]

I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s comments and perhaps we will discuss the idea again.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you.

[Jane Ellison]

I want to discuss another area in which we can make a difference by empowering patients. Colleagues might be interested to hear about the patient experience of diabetes services survey, part of the national diabetes audit, in which I know there is always great interest in the House—we regularly answer a number of parliamentary questions about it. The survey measures the health care experiences of people with diabetes in England and Wales. It collects information online from people with diabetes by asking questions about their care using a short, validated questionnaire, and it is being tested.

Any diabetes service in England and Wales should be able to use the survey to get feedback from patients. We want to publish the first results this month or this summer. That is going to be an interesting extra tool in the box, not only to help to drive excellence and drive out variation, but to empower local services to understand at a local level what is going on and how satisfied their patients are with the service being provided. That can lead only to upward pressure to improve services, not least from patients.

Let me talk a little about the NHS health check programme. Alongside the work being done by NHS England to improve the management and care of people with diabetes, the Government are working on prevention and earlier detection, which all Members mentioned. We are continuing to roll out the NHS health check programme, which identifies those aged between 40 and 74 who are at risk of diabetes and other vascular diseases and helps them to reduce that risk. More than 15 million people are currently eligible for an NHS health check. Our economic modelling has shown that the programme has the potential to prevent more than 4,000 people a year from developing diabetes and to detect at least 20,000 cases of diabetes or kidney disease earlier. It is all about helping people to better manage and improve their quality of life.

In the past year, almost 3 million NHS health check offers were made and almost 1.5 million appointments were taken up, during a time of great change across the health system. We are now looking to challenge the system to go further and faster and to continue to increase the number of people who participate in the programme. I have been out and about and seen some great local initiatives. I visited an NHS health check team in Southwark and witnessed the important conversations they were starting with people in their local area.

Another example is Bolton, where health trainers have worked with 134 people identified as being at risk of diabetes through the NHS health check. The health trainers have supported people to make lifestyle changes such as eating more healthily and increasing physical activity levels, and they have helped almost half the group to return their glycaemic level to normal. That is really good evidence of effective intervention.

In Tower Hamlets, where more than 50% of the population are from ethnic minority groups, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has been growing rapidly. To help to combat that, Tower Hamlets has incorporated the health check programme into its managed practice network scheme. I have talked to staff about that and heard about how they are approaching it. Tower Hamlets has worked hard to ensure that all diabetic patients have a care plan, and that focus has resulted in a 70% increase between 2009 and 2012. There has also been a lot of focus on the take-up of retinal screening for people with diabetes, and, again, there has been a significant rise.

We are seeing that such local interventions can really work. I firmly believe that a localist approach is important in some of these areas, because there is no one-size-fits-all approach that we can devise in Westminster that will work for every community. Such local innovations are important. I constantly challenge myself to think about how we can ensure that we spread the word about some of this great local action. We have started initiatives in that regard, but Parliament has a great role to play, and I encourage Members to tell us of effective local initiatives, so that we can spread the word.

Research on the NHS health check programme carried out by Imperial college London and Queen Mary university of London is under way. That research will improve our understanding of who is taking up the opportunity, their risk of cardiovascular disease and the incidence of diseases such as diabetes in those groups. When that work comes back, it will help us to understand how we can make those interventions count more.

We have already talked a little about obesity and sedentary lifestyles. Physical activity is a big priority of this Government, and I have had a couple of meetings in the past couple of days alone on the cross-Government action we are taking to try to hardwire physical activity into all aspects of life. We have a long way to go yet because, for too long, physical activity was left in a silo marked “health” when it is more important than that. We know that all parts of local and national Government need to address inactivity; that is one of the factors that can help to prevent diabetes.

I also want briefly to address the responsibility deal. The Government have been working with business—the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned this—on its responsibility to consider calorie reduction and clearer labelling of food. We are starting to see calories and other contents displayed on the packaging of many more foods, as we roll out consistent food labelling on a voluntary basis across the country.

The Change4Life social marketing campaign, which is one of Public Health England’s flagship programmes, is encouraging individuals to make simple changes, and it is trying to work with people in the way that the shadow Minister mentioned. The campaign is trying to talk to people in language that makes it straightforward and easy for them to understand the good choices they can make for the health of both themselves and their family.

The national child measurement programme’s findings on childhood obesity are encouraging. We know that far too many people are overweight and obese, but we are seeing signs of encouragement. In 2012, childhood obesity rates fell for the first time since 1998, so we must not despair over the actions we have all taken and advocated over many years. We are beginning to see that such action can have an effect, but we must never underestimate how far we have to go.

In 2013, the global burden of disease study showed that the UK has the lowest rates of early death due to diabetes of the 19 wealthy countries included in the analysis. The last data on diabetes care showed a 60% completion rate for all eight care processes recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is a five percentage point improvement on 2010. We see progress, but we know there is much more to do. The Melbourne declaration is a timely reminder of the serious threat posed by the disease across the world, as well as here in the UK. I assure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who led this debate and leads the all-party group in such an exemplary way, that diabetes is a priority on which we continue to work hard. We are pleased to see progress, but we do not underestimate how much more there is to do. Such debates are welcome opportunities to keep the issue firmly on Parliament’s radar.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Mr Sanders, we still have a few moments. Do you want to make a few closing remarks?

15:43

[Mr Sanders]

When the Minister came to the all-party group, I do not think anyone recognised that it was her first meeting because she carried it off with distinction and quickly won over a lot of friends in the group. She has been a consistent friend throughout the period.

One of the challenges of a bottom-up approach, as has been highlighted in this debate, is getting people to use the information that is out there to drive up standards. People need to be aware of where the information is and how they can best use it, which is a challenge not only for diabetes but across the health service. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

15:44

Sitting suspended.

Dust Pollution/Fly Infestation: Avonmouth

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

16:00

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.

First, I will provide details of an unacceptable state of affairs for my constituents in the village of Avonmouth, and then I shall outline my deep concern about procedural failures by the agencies involved to safeguard residents, with a view to gaining the Minister’s feedback on how we can ensure that such a situation never happens again, or that if it does—heaven forbid—how we ensure that action to help residents is urgent and effective. Residents living in Avonmouth village have had severe complaints about a number of pollution issues, including dust and noise. I shall cover those as well as the most recent incident: a vile infestation of flies throughout the community.

The problem arose about two months ago. Boomeco, a waste firm, had won the contract from local councils to ship refuse-derived fuel material—RDF—from Avonmouth docks to Scandinavia. Boomeco oversaw a sequence of failures involving the inadequate packaging of waste and inadequate overland transport of waste, which resulted in bags splitting open—with birds helping by pecking the bags open further—flies laying eggs in the waste, and a subsequent explosion of newly hatched flies as the weather became warm.

Residents began raising their alarm and concerns in early May, but despite action being taken to remove the source of the flies, no action was taken by any party to remove the flies that were already in the community until I, as the MP, realised that the normal mechanisms of gaining help were not working and sought, by exceptional means, emergency intervention from the elected mayor, George Ferguson. That resulted in Bristol city council’s environmental health department distributing fly spray and fly paper, and fumigating people’s properties, albeit some six to eight weeks after the problem first arose.

Residents’ main frustration has been the sluggishness of all agencies to respond to their urgent concerns about the health hazards posed by the infestation of flies in homes and local businesses. I was given repeated reassurances by the Environment Agency that the problem was either in hand or about to die out the next day, or indeed that there was no problem at all.

In terms of resolving the problem at its source, the Environment Agency revoked Boomeco’s licence to operate. I understand that, on 2 June, all cargo from Boomeco was removed from the port with the area cleansed, and that no other RDF will be placed there. I also understand that although the Environment Agency judged that the source of flies had been removed, the port of Bristol has required another RDF handler, Churngold, to remove its RDF cargo from the site, and that some of it was loaded on to a ship last week and Churngold has been required to clear the site of RDF by 21 June, if not sooner, after which the site will be cleansed. However, there has been sustained unwillingness from the Environment Agency and environmental health bodies in particular to acknowledge the difference between removing the source of the problem and removing the manifestation or residue of the problem: the infestation of flies that is still embedded in Avonmouth village.

I have raised questions with the Environment Agency about the adequacy and nature of its inspection systems for port tenants, and I am seeking information on the number of unannounced inspections that it is undertaking. I am also concerned by the agency’s inability to reflect the reality of a situation in its assessments. In providing evidence of my concerns, I will give examples of apparently inadequate assessment relating to dust and noise pollution.

After several weeks of trying to get action from the relevant bodies to solve the fly infestation problem, I was sent an e-mail from the Environment Agency on Friday 6 June stating:

“My team also called on a number of residents. Views about fly numbers were mixed, but there was a general view that the fly numbers were not at problematic levels.”

I am sorry to say this, but either that team was not in an Avonmouth anywhere near Bristol or did not speak to residents, or it was seriously misleading about what the residents said.

In my extensive conversations with many residents in the area on that day, there was not a single one who did not think the flies were a serious problem. It was because that concern was so high and the flies were such a problem, and after realising that formal routes were not working, that I directly requested that the elected mayor use emergency contingency funding, if necessary, to get fumigation, fly spray, fly paper and anything else that was needed by residents. I am astounded that the Environment Agency claimed that flies were not a problem, but that explains why action was not forthcoming—the myth was propagated that there was no problem to solve.

The Environment Agency assessors also appear to have been inadequate in their assessment of dust pollution in the area. Residents have raised concerns about the content of dust that is falling on their houses, and especially about the magnetic nature of some of that dust. Of course, it is inevitable that ports produce dust, but it is unacceptable if a port is responsible for there being illegally toxic or dangerous dust in communities. It is the Environment Agency’s job to establish if that is the case, but I am not confident that that job has been done properly.

I hope that you will forgive me, Dr McCrea, but I realise that I should have started my speech by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hope that you will acknowledge that as if it was done at the start of the debate. I offer my apologies.

I am not confident that the job of assessing the dust has been done properly because, for example, when assessing the contents of a resident’s fish pond filter, the Environment Agency’s assessment—that there was no problem—was in direct conflict with the opinion of a fish expert who examined the filter and advised an immediate clean-out of the pond due to the toxic nature of its contents. Residents are worried that Environment Agency assessments of other dust samples have been incomplete and inadequate, and I understand that they have had to pay for sample assessments to get a more adequate breakdown of the dust’s contents.

It has also been reported to me that an Environment Agency officer’s assessment of the noise levels of a tenant of the port was lacking in several key respects. Given the quality of other information that the agency has provided, I am afraid that I do not find that hard to believe.

I have also been disappointed by Bristol city council’s attitude on the legal viability of serving abatement notices on firms that break legal noise levels. I have urged the council to seek a second legal opinion from a non-council lawyer and reconsider its legal options. By being slow in serving abatement notices for any illegally high noise levels, the council is setting a precedent that even though activities may involve illegal noise levels, they are acceptable, which may have implications for licensing. That is of grave concern.

Let me return to the most recent pollution incident: the flies. A large number of bodies are involved in this case—North Somerset council and Bristol city council, whose refuse was being shipped; Boomeco, which was responsible for shipping it; the port, which is the landlord of Boomeco, the tenant; the Environment Agency; and Bristol city council again, as it has environment health responsibility for the area—so the onus of responsibility for the ongoing incident is complex. However, I am concerned that there is no plan in place to ensure that in such an emergency situation—anyone living in the area will say that it is an emergency—action comes first, with ascertaining responsibility for who picks up the bill coming second.

Will the Minister please make it clear what responsibilities those different bodies have for ensuring that residents are kept safe from such health hazards? What responsibility do they have to ensure that an emergency plan is ready, and what actions can the Government take to ensure that they have such a plan so that residents are protected?

I understand that, according to Government requirements, the port of Bristol does not have any choice about handling RDF cargo. Will the Government reassess the suitability of ports that are in such proximity to communities handling that waste? Will the Minister examine whether the Environment Agency’s assessment mechanisms are fit for purpose? The agency has lost the trust of local taxpayers, and I am deeply concerned by its ability to assess not only the fly situation accurately, but the dust and noise pollution. I have asked the EA locally to undertake a review of why its assessments appear to have been so inaccurate.

Finally, can the Minister give any reassurance to residents that the Government will look closely at why such incidents occur and put all measures in place to ensure that they do not? Will the Government do all that they can to urge Bristol city council, the Environment Agency and all other bodies involved to do their utmost strenuously to tackle this ongoing problem? There is still a plague of flies even as I speak—it has not subsided. If, by any diabolical combination of circumstance, a pollution incident does occur, will the Government work with local bodies to ensure that residents are at the top of the priority list for help, rather than being treated like second-class citizens in a third-world country, as many people in Avonmouth currently feel is the case?

16:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) on securing this debate, which is important for her constituents who have experienced issues that have caused them great disquiet and inconvenience. I thank her for bringing those issues to our attention, so that we can, I hope, address some of the potential underlying causes as well as the symptoms, which are hopefully being dealt with as we speak.

The Environment Agency will carry out a joint air quality monitoring exercise with Bristol city council and Public Health England at the port, during which they will sample airborne dust and establish the prevailing direction from which the dust arises, allowing the agency to characterise its nature. This exercise will start shortly, but may need to continue for some time if we are to trace the source or sources of the dust accurately. A range of activities are potential sources of dust. For example, there is a stockpile of coal at the docks. If the dust is attributable to any of the operations subject to an environmental permit granted by the Environment Agency, it will work with the operator to minimise those emissions.

In respect of the fly infestation, I understand from the Environment Agency that one company was responsible for storing household-type waste destined to be used as refuse-derived fuel or RDF. This black-bag waste is sorted and baled at a waste management site a couple of miles away from the docks and sent to the docks for storage prior to export. The Environment Agency had allowed the company to operate under a regulatory position that allowed the temporary storage of this material without an environmental permit, provided that the operator met specific environmental controls.

Following complaints raised in May, the Environment Agency withdrew the regulatory position and asked the operator to remove the stored waste. The Environment Agency has confirmed that all the RDF waste had been removed from the site by 3 June. The area has been cleaned and has remained clear since then. A second company—the hon. Lady mentioned it—is carrying out a similar waste operation, but is not thought to have contributed to the recent fly infestation. As she also mentioned, that company, too, has now been asked to cease its activities by the port authorities.

I am assured that the Environment Agency has been engaging with the hon. Lady and will continue to do so. She has clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with some actions taken by the agency. I know that she met the agency recently to explore—

16:11

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:29

On resuming—

[Dan Rogerson]

I offer my commiserations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West, but congratulate her on an energetic campaign for the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health.

Before the Division, I was discussing the Environment Agency’s approach to engaging with my hon. Friend and residents. While she mentioned previous failures in communication, I hope that we have now moved on and that the agency is keeping her fully briefed. I will respond to my hon. Friend’s questions, but I will first continue to cover the issues raised with me by the Environment Agency in preparation for the debate.

The necessary legislative safeguards are in place to ensure that the risk to the environment and human health from waste management is minimised through the environment permitting system. I have made it clear to the Environment Agency that it has my full support in taking a tougher approach against those who, by their actions or omissions, demonstrate a deliberate and often repeated disregard for the law and the environment. In December last year, I wrote to the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith, and outlined areas for action, including greater scrutiny of prospective operators, such as of their financial resources, and increasing the inspection of poorly performing sites.

It has been estimated that the cost of waste crime to the UK economy is between a staggering £300 million and £800 million a year. That figure could of course be substantially higher as the full nature of waste crime means it is difficult to estimate the true cost, including tax evasion. Good progress in tackling waste crime has been made in some areas, however. For example, the number of active illegal waste sites is at its lowest for four years. In the year ending 31 March 2013, the Environment Agency’s task force closed down nearly 1,300 illegal waste sites, which is more than in any previous year. Reported fly-tipping incidents have also fallen year on year. The National Fly-tipping Prevention Group has also published its fly-tipping framework, which includes best practice on prevention, reporting, investigation and clearance of fly-tipping. The Sentencing Council guidelines to the courts on environmental offences will come into effect next month, meaning that the courts can hand down penalties that will act as a greater deterrent to offending. Despite the tough constraints on public finances, we secured an extra £5 million in the 2014 Budget specifically for tackling waste crime. We are committed to using the funding to target effort and resources on those areas where it will make the biggest difference.

The Environment Agency established a waste fires task and finish group in July 2013. Several hon. Members have raised waste fires as a potential problem, so I passed on those concerns to the agency to ensure that we get the processes right and that intervention is early when things are going wrong. My hon. Friend contended that matters that have been raised with the agency at an early stage have not been followed up quickly enough, so I will feed that into my discussions with the chief executive. Much more needs to be done, however. Earlier today I was speaking at the waste industry and profession’s annual conference, where I outlined the work that DEFRA and the Environment Agency are doing to tackle waste crime and poor or sub-standard operations. I will be writing to the key stakeholders about that shortly.

My hon. Friend mentioned refuse-derived fuel, which is produced both for the domestic market and for export and is limited to material that cannot be effectively recycled. The combination of fuel and technology is sufficient to deliver clear environmental benefits. That is why we issued a call in March for evidence to businesses, councils and stakeholders involved in the RDF industry. The aim of the call was to gain a greater understanding of the RDF market in England, and of any issues associated with the market, some of which my hon. Friend has outlined here, and how they might best be addressed. The call closed on 9 May and we are currently analysing the responses.

My hon. Friend asked who had responsibility for different aspects of regulation and enforcement. To clarify, the Environment Agency has responsibility for measures to prevent harm to the environment and to prevent harm and nuisance at the sites that it regulates. It has been said that the sites in question were not permitted, which is something that we will discuss with the agency. The local authority is responsible for the temporary storage of waste that is in transit. Public Health England is responsible for offering advice to ensure that the local community is protected if there are health concerns. Many of the issues about material in transit through the port will be the responsibility of the local authority. I will reflect on the issues my hon. Friend has raised and will write to her to examine how the responsibilities should apply in this particular case, so that the residents of Avonmouth can be reassured that they are properly protected from harm and nuisance.

Regarding the suitability of the docks and their proximity to the residents whom my hon. Friend represents, the Environment Agency has powers to take action against any harm or pollution caused by waste. Where a site operates on a permanent basis, the EA imposes conditions in an environmental permit to mitigate any risk from a particular site, which brings us back to whether the site in question was permanent and whether it should have been operating under a formal permit, which would have allowed more conditions to be imposed. I have set out that the EA will be monitoring dust levels, which I hope will be of some reassurance to my hon. Friend, so that we have proper evidence to trace back any potential causes of dust nuisance for her residents, which can then be dealt with.

My hon. Friend asked whether I think that the Environment Agency is fit for purpose. Yes, I do. I have worked with many people from the agency throughout the recent extreme weather events and on tackling waste crime. The agency’s structure and professionalism are of a high standard. That is not to say that we cannot improve in everything that we do. If anyone from the Government stood here and said that every agency was perfect, they would soon get short shrift. I will reflect on the issues that my hon. Friend has brought here on the behalf of her residents. Perhaps we can correspond in writing regarding any further concerns, in particular about dust monitoring. I thank her for bringing the subject to the attention of the Department and of the Chamber.

Sulphur Regulations

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

16:35

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

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.

I am pleased to have secured this debate on a pressing issue that could have serious consequences for jobs in my constituency and the rest of the UK. I have several concerns about the regulations and several questions that I would like the Minster to address. I am worried that the EU regulations, which come into force on 1 January 2015, could put at risk over 350 jobs in my constituency and 2,000 jobs in ports across the UK. I am concerned that the European Commission and the Government have not done enough to measure the impact of the directive on local economies such as that in Hull. I am grateful to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the UK Chamber of Shipping for their briefings on a topic that is clearly a concern for all. The UK Chamber of Shipping and the RMT have produced estimates on the impact of the implementation of the regulations, and it is unclear whether the Government have fully assessed the evidence and are satisfied that the regulations will not dramatically undermine the shipping industry. I hope the Minister can provide some assurances that the Government have properly investigated the evidence and additional costs associated with the regulations.

I am persuaded that in an attempt to do all that we can to protect jobs, shipping companies should be given more flexibility to implement new rules in a way that does not undermine jobs. What does the Minister think of that? I will, however, add a cautionary note for the shipping industry. I am conscious that it has had several years—I believe since 2008—to prepare for the changes and substantial amounts of tax relief, in the form of tonnage tax, to aid transition. I hope that the additional costs are not used simply to reduce the payroll bill and that the industry does not use existing loopholes in legislation to meet additional costs by recruiting low-cost crew at non- UK ratings. However, the Government have a role to play in the transition and I solicit the Minister’s views on the possibility of providing mitigating support to maritime businesses to ensure stability in the shipping sector.

The Humber is the UK’s busiest trading route and positive things are happening in the estuary. Companies such as Siemens and Associated British Ports are investing millions into Hull, and there is no doubt that affordable shipping between Hull and Europe is imperative to this investment. That is why we need certainty that nothing will undermine our local shipping industry and the economic development of our ports. We need our ports to be open for business and to ensure that exporters are not priced out of using ferries sailing out of Hull.

Over the coming years, shipping and freight to the Humber will be more important than ever. I am therefore worried by a report in the Financial Times, in which Jens Holger Nielson, chief executive of Samskip, a freight company that runs into the Humber, says in response to the regulations that they will

“shut transport routes and companies across Europe”.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on such an important issue. In addition to the point that he has rightly made about the likely impact of the regulations on the shipping industry and jobs, are we not also likely to see forecourt diesel prices driven up, with all that that means, and the danger of thousands more lorries on our roads as the price of transport by ship goes up relative to road transport? Does he agree that the Government need to say what they have done to avert that and what they will do now to ensure that common sense prevails?

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right, of course, and I will return to that point.

As the Minister is aware, the route between Harwich and Denmark is to close after 140 years, because of declining demand and the £2 million annual cost of cleaner fuel. I am concerned that other routes will follow. Echoing such fears, the Transport Committee reported that the regulations could reduce shipping activity, affect ports and roads, and cause job losses.

Any attempt to reduce sulphur emissions is commendable and no one is arguing against reducing them per se, but I am concerned that this so-called green policy will in fact have a detrimental effect on the environment—as my right hon. Friend said. I agree that increased costs will see a modal shift, with freight travelling by road instead of by sea; road freight emits around 10 times more CO₂ per tonne than shipping.

In April 2008, the International Maritime Organisation agreed to reduce sulphur emissions from shipping to ensure that ships only use fuel that emits 0.1% sulphur in designated sulphur emission control areas. The entire eastern and southern seaboards of the UK sit within that control area, so every ship coming in and out of ports from Falmouth to Aberdeen will be required to comply with the regulations on 1 January 2015. At least 220 usual routes operating from the UK will be affected and there is real concern that increased costs will see the closure of many of those routes, resulting in job losses.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that not only shipping companies are likely to be affected, but fantastically successful ports such as the port of Southampton, which contributes directly to around 15,000 jobs in Hampshire? It is critically important for us to have transitional arrangements so that the private sector investment that has continued in Southampton for many years carries on in future.

[Karl Turner]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and I thank her for her intervention. For me, the issue is mainly about the loss of employment, and she is right to mention her own constituency because I am sure that she is concerned about employment there. Although the IMO adopted the regulations, it also definitely recognised that flexibility would be required to allow companies the transition time to adapt to the new era without damage to businesses. The hon. Lady made that same point.

Following an inquiry by the Transport Committee, it reported that the regulations would see an 87% rise in fuel costs, and shipping companies estimate that approximately €55 million will be added to annual fuel bills. To meet such increased costs on the North sea routes will probably be economically unviable. I am told by P&O Ferries and other shipowners that, in reality, ferries tend to run on tight margins. The costs will create a problem not only for ship operators, but for exporters, leading to a detrimental effect on our region’s exports and tourism.

Hull’s local economy relies heavily on tourism, and Hull city council’s 10-year plan sees tourism as a major contributor to the economic regeneration of the city. Hull will be the city of culture in 2017 and we are working hard locally to ensure we have reliable and affordable transport links. As a result of increased fuel costs and in order to overcome the extra expenditure, ferry operators will no doubt pass them on to their customers or, worryingly, reduce services. It is therefore of great concern that the regulations could have a severe impact on the number of tourists coming through our ports and weaken the much-needed tourism economy.

No one disputes the need to reduce sulphur emissions, but, if we consider the resulting increased use of road haulage and accept that shipping produces considerably less carbon emissions per tonne kilometre than any other commonly used means of freight transportation, the environmental argument for the policy in the regulations is undermined.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate, which is timely, because today the Freight Transport Association is celebrating its 125th anniversary. Does he accept that the argument that we need to focus on is how the regulations will be implemented, and the timing, because the UK Chamber of Shipping has accepted and, in my understanding, is content with the move on sulphur emissions?

[Karl Turner]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady; it is true that timing is the issue. Some argue that businesses have had long enough, frankly, and that some assistance has been provided through tax subsidies. However, as a Member for Parliament for east Hull, where unemployment is high, when businesses tell me that they are worried about job losses, I have to be concerned.

The Hull and Humber chamber of commerce has also expressed worries that the regulations will have a negative impact on the local road haulage sector—job losses in that sector as well perhaps. It argues that increased costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers, such as road haulage firms, and those firms may see it as necessary either to travel longer distances by road, with shorter sea crossings, again increasing CO₂ emissions, or to relocate to other areas of the UK where the implications of the fuel cost increase are less dramatic. Both options are damaging to the economy and indeed to the environment.

As I have said a few times in my remarks, no one has a problem with reducing sulphur emissions, but I am not convinced that the regulations will achieve that goal. I am not convinced that the Government have fully considered the evidence or the true impact that the regulations will have on jobs, the environment, our roads and the shipping industry. We absolutely have to ensure that sulphur emissions are reduced, but that needs to be balanced with growth in a fragile economy. The Government plan to review the effects of the policy in 2019, but I ask the Minister to consider a review much earlier, perhaps 12 months after implementation.

Hull is having a tough time and we need to work hard to protect every local job in my city. Our roads are at bursting point and the last thing that we need next year is heavier lorry congestion. I urge the Minister to push the European Commission for more implementation time and to do all that he can do to ensure that jobs and the environment are fully protected.

16:49

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr McCrea. Like other Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this important debate. The sulphur regulations will undoubtedly have an impact on the shipping industry, jobs and the environment. I will answer a number of his points but also put on record some of what the Government have been doing. Some of the information that has been put about is perhaps slightly disappointing.

The hon. Gentleman was right to identify at the start of his speech that the fundamental issue is air pollution and its impact on human health and the environment. Everybody accepts that air pollution is bad for people’s health. We are talking not just about quality of life, although that is important, but about costs to industry and the commercial sector when people are off work because they are sick, and costs to the national health service for treating those who need treatment. Reducing sulphur emissions will undoubtedly provide benefits to public health, in both inland and coastal communities. Reducing the emissions will also provide benefits to the environment. Sulphur is linked to acid rain, which affects plant life and crops, and can upset the balance of delicate marine eco-systems.

For exactly those reasons the Government have worked consistently with the International Maritime Organisation, or IMO—the international body with the knowledge and expertise to regulate international shipping appropriately and proportionately—to develop measures to regulate pollutant emissions from ships. Throughout the whole of that process, under both this Government and the previous Government, the aim has been to develop measures that are effective and proportionate, with a view to implementing them in a way that minimises both the regulatory burden on and the cost to industry.

In the IMO, pollutant emissions from ships are controlled by annex VI to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, more commonly known as MARPOL. Although it is true that a number of operators have worked to reduce emissions, sadly some have taken no steps on the issue. The regulations, which date back to 2008, and some of the new limits in MARPOL annex VI stem from the recognition by the international shipping community and the Government that the new limits need to be supported. The limits will help air quality and will also have consequential benefits for human health and for the environment.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I agree with the Minister—I know many shipping and ferry companies based in my region do, as well—that the intention of reducing emissions is admirable, but there is a twofold concern, which he has already raised. One element is the cost of the changes: one local ferry company has calculated that it will have to spend £320 million on converting its fleet. But it takes three months to convert each ship, and it is those time scales that are of most concern to companies.

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is of course right, and she will hear in my speech what I did immediately I became shipping Minister, some 21 months ago, to recognise that. She will also want to hear about some of the work we are now doing with companies to reassure them about how they can minimise costs.

My hon. Friend will also recognise, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, that the Government and the EU are not seeking to impose on the industry something that was announced only today, yesterday, a month or a year ago. The industry has had over six years to get its head around the regulations. Indeed, it is worth reading into the record what the view of the UK Chamber of Shipping was when the proposals were first announced back in 2008. I quote directly from the chamber of shipping’s document:

“The IMO’s proposal to progressively reduce sulphur emissions globally to the equivalent of 0.5 per cent sulphur content in all fuel by 2020, and in designated sensitive coastal areas to 0.1 per cent sulphur content equivalent by 2015, is a major move forward. These realistic deadlines also give the oil industry the time it needs to ensure that the required quantities of low sulphur fuel will be readily available.”

That was its view in 2008, and at that stage it recognised that the time scales were realistic.

A time scale was put in place for reducing the global sulphur limit. There is a separate, staged timetable for reducing levels to the more stringent limit in designated emission control areas. In almost all respects, the IMO MARPOL standards have been incorporated into EU law, in the directive on sulphur in marine fuels. The origin of the requirements does not lie solely in the UK. It is not that the UK Government are placing burdens on the shipping industry; on the contrary, the requirements are part of an international worldwide agreement, stemming from international and European agreements. The industry was fully consulted on those at the time.

I have to say that I am pretty disappointed that the UK Chamber of Shipping continues to react as if the sulphur limits are new and are somehow inherently undesirable, or else that the UK Government should have avoided them. The fact of the matter is that the regulations are about the protection of health and protection of the environment, which is a legal obligation. The UK Chamber of Shipping has been brought into the Government’s deliberations at every opportunity. It is well aware of what the Government can and cannot do legally and of the fact that we have pushed back continually to try to change the time scales.

Again, in 2009 the UK Chamber of Shipping wrote to The Guardian:

“The latest IMO legislation was recognised by governments and the shipping and refining industries as a prime example of ambitious but pragmatic rule-making.”

It recognised that in 2009, so to pretend today that the regulations are something new is slightly disingenuous.

[Karl Turner]

Does the Minister accept that the chamber of shipping is saying that ferry operators are concerned about job losses and about their businesses failing as a result? That is an issue for me, as Member of Parliament for east Hull. Will he address that directly—is there anything he can do as a Government Minister?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned. If he waits a few minutes I will tell him directly what the Government have done and are doing now.

The idea that is being put forward today, namely that these are new regulations and a crunch is coming—there is not; there is a date for implementation coming—is not supported by all of the chamber’s own members. On the contrary, some members of the chamber belong to the Trident Alliance, which is a coalition of shipping owners and operators who share a common interest and do not share the views being put across.

I accept that shipping is not the only source of pollutant emissions, but without the controls, polluting emissions from ships will grow significantly because of the reductions made by other modes of transport: unless action is taken, by 2020 shipping will account for more than half of all sulphur emissions in Europe.

As everyone has recognised, the limits undoubtedly pose challenges for shipowners, particularly for those whose ships operate predominantly or exclusively in an emission control area. The Government appreciate that some shipowners, and ferry operators in particular, have raised concerns about the cost of complying with the new limits. From our discussions, we are conscious that the impacts are not spread evenly, and that routes for multipurpose vessels—those carrying both passengers and freight—are likely to see the highest costs. We also recognise the importance of ferries and jobs.

Throughout the whole process we have therefore sought to implement the sulphur limits in a way that maximises the opportunity for the industry to minimise the economic impact. I became shipping Minister in 2012, and immediately in October of that year and again in 2013 I chaired round-table meetings of industry stakeholders, including from shipping, the ports, abatement technology—more colloquially known as scrubbing technology—oil refining and logistics sectors, to consider how we could make sure that people could work to comply with the regulations in a way that minimised regulation and cost. As a direct result, we commissioned a survey to look at the economic costs to industry.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the Minister for what he has done with the shipping sector. Whatever the sector needs, whether it be incentives or a boot up the backside, that work needs to carry on. Does he recognise that it is not just the sector itself that is affected, but the ports and jobs connected to ports? In Portsmouth we are putting a lot of money into our commercial port. Will he give us an assurance today that our ambitions—whether on ferries, cruise liners or freight—will be able to be met if the directive is implemented?

[Stephen Hammond]

I certainly hope to be able to do that by the end of my speech, and to explain some of the things we are doing. Portsmouth, like so many other places, including Hull, has a booming port industry. There is a renaissance, particularly in my hon. Friend’s port and in my home town of Southampton, from where there are huge exports, the like of which would not have been dreamed of 15 years ago. That is a tribute to the port industry, which is now a great success.

As a direct result of the round-table discussions, which were also about commissioning work on the economic costs, I immediately contacted the Secretary-General of the IMO and made exactly the point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East made: we must not wait for a review of the 2020 regulations, but should start a review immediately. I persuaded the IMO that it should start the review promptly following the implementation of these regulations.

Another outcome of the meetings is that the Government are looking at ways of helping the industry. My officials have been working closely with the UK Chamber of Shipping—which is why I am so disappointed—for a considerable period. We have solicited an assurance from the European Union that it will meet individual ferry operators who approach it to discuss a route to compliance. I accept that there are important issues to address, but both those things are a major step forward in helping the industry with the prospect of the regulatory burden.

One question is whether, as ships are encouraged to use fuels with a lower sulphur content, there will be sufficient fuel available. That is why the review is so important. It is equally important to look at other issues. Do we have an opportunity not to implement the sulphur limits? No, we do not because we would fail to meet international treaty obligations. More than that, we consistently spoke to EU fellow nations, none of which was prepared to deflect or move away from the time scales. If we do not implement the new limits, non-compliant UK-flagged ships will still be subject to enforcement action at UK ports. We do not have the opportunity or option of avoiding the limits. We cannot delay implementing the limits even on vulnerable routes. There is no exemption and that is why we have worked with the EU to allow ferry operators to discuss flexible implementation.

We held extensive discussions with other north European states that will be affected by the limits that will apply in the North sea. We pressed for exemptions for vulnerable routes, but there was no support from other members. The Government have not only pressed the case for ferry operators directly with the EU, but negotiated with other countries.

Shipowners have the option of installing scrubber technology or the exhaust gas cleaning system and we have been working with them on the cost of those systems. I recognise that significant capital is required and the Department is exploring the scope for securing EU finance under the trans-European network programme and affordable capital from the European investment bank for shipowners and ports that want to benefit from investment in that green technology.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East referred to a possible modal shift from sea to road and the identification of total fuel costs. Again, we are consulting on draft UK legislation. Part of that consultation is directly about the cost, but if we look at whether the implementation of the 0.1% sulphur limit will lead to a rise in costs for motorists, even if every ship in the emissions control area used 0.1% sulphur fuel rather than the abatement technology, we see that would still be less than 10% of the total market for middle-distillate diesel fuel. There will be a potential cost for motorists, but it will not be as great as stated. It is highly unlikely that every ship will use that. Many will use the scrubbing technology and I hope that the Government will be able to secure EU finance to enable shipowners to make transitional arrangements.

We have also been discussing with the industry our plans for applying a much more pragmatic approach to enforcement. It is important that enforcement is consistent and fair. My officials have already discussed with other member states and the Commission how to ensure a fair and consistent approach throughout the EU, so that services from UK ports are not unfairly disadvantaged.

It is important to look beyond compliance with the limits in the control area. I have been working closely with the Secretary-General of the IMO on the availability of 0.5% sulphur fuel in 2020, which will be the next challenge. l am pleased with the leadership that the UK has shown. We have been prominent, with the support of the Dutch and the Americans, in ensuring that the IMO is committed to engaging constructively and undertaking an early review.

There is no doubt that the sulphur limits are coming in in 2015 and prospectively in 2020. However, if the review shows that the fuel is not available, I will certainly negotiate with the IMO to push that limit back because it would be unfair to impose that on the industry. This Government and, to give them credit, the previous Government have worked with the industry to find ways of mitigating the cost and the regulatory burden and to ensure that jobs in this country are protected. That is why we are working to secure finance and transitional arrangements for people to implement scrubbing technology.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman that the Government, unlike the image that might have been presented, are taking the matter extraordinarily seriously. We have done so during my time in office and before. We have actively worked to support British shipping and the all-important jobs that come with it.

Question put and agreed to.

17:07

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Written Statements

Wednesday 18 June 2014

National Minimum Wage

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that the Government have today written to the Low Pay Commission setting out the remit for its 2015 report.

The Government support the national minimum wage (NMW) because of the protection it provides to low-paid workers and the incentives to work it provides. Our aim is to have NMW rates that help as many low-paid workers as possible, while making sure that we do not damage their employment prospects.

The Low Pay Commission (LPC) is asked to:

Monitor, evaluate and review the levels of each of the different NMW rates and make recommendations on the levels it believes should apply from October 2015.

Consider whether any changes can be made to the apprentice rate:

to make the structure simpler and improve compliance; and

whether the structure and level of the apprentice rate should continue to be applied to all levels of apprenticeship, including higher levels.

Review the conditions that need to be in place to allow the value of the minimum wage to increase in real terms. This would include an update on their advice on the future path of the NMW.

In making recommendations in the areas set out above, the Low Pay Commission is asked to take account of the state of the economy, and employment and unemployment levels.

Timing

The LPC is asked to report to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills as early as possible in February 2015.

Copies of the remit have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Technical and Vocational Qualifications

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Written Statements

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

A successful economy needs qualifications that are of a high quality, benefit the young people that take them and are valued by employers. We are linking the whole education system more closely to the world of work: with more relevant, respected qualifications, more emphasis on the development of useful practical and technical skills, and greater employer influence over the design, delivery and assessment of qualifications.

In March we released “Getting the Job Done: The Government’s Reform Plan for Vocational Qualifications”. Today, I am announcing the introduction of two new categories of technical and vocational qualifications for 14 to 19-year-olds. We expect new qualifications to be brought forward in each category, and existing qualifications to be categorised where they meet the required level of rigour and responsiveness to employer demand.

In the past employers knew that a young person who held, for example, a City and Guilds bricklaying qualification could be relied upon to construct a wall to a high standard. These qualifications then started to get lost among thousands of others. The introduction of tech levels, and now substantial vocational qualifications at level 2 for 16 to 19-year-olds and technical awards for 14 to 16-year-olds will restore confidence in the technical and vocational qualifications available for young people.

From September 2015, technical awards will sit alongside GCSEs for 14 to 16-year-olds, and mark the final stage of reform at key stage 4. At the same time, substantial vocational qualifications at level 2 will be introduced for students aged 16 to 19. Qualifications in each of these categories will be reported in school and college performance tables from 2017.

Technical awards will inject rigour into practical, technical and more skills-based qualifications for 14 to 16-year-olds. Developed in partnership with employers they will provide an opportunity to develop knowledge and practical skills that are essential in our growing economy, without restricting a student’s opportunities for progression at 16. These highly-valued qualifications, equivalent to GCSEs, will give students the opportunity to develop real-life practical skills, at the same time as studying reformed GCSEs in academic subjects.

Substantial vocational qualifications at level 2 provide students aged 16 to 19 with a route into a skilled trade or occupation, where employers recognise entry at this level (most construction trades, care work and hairdressing, for example). They will also provide access to tech levels. All of these qualifications will require public backing from employers, giving students confidence that the qualification they are taking is genuinely valued.

The Department for Education will publish today technical guidance for awarding organisations that sets out the requirements for technical awards and substantial vocational qualifications at level 2, as well as further quality requirements for tech levels and applied general qualifications at level 3.

In addition to the new types of technical and vocational qualifications, I am also announcing the first tech bac trailblazers. These are high performing schools and colleges that will deliver the three components of the technical baccalaureate (tech bac) performance tables measure to talented students from September 2014. The tech bac measure will recognise the achievement of students completing a tech level, level 3 mathematics (including AS level mathematics or the new core maths qualification) and an extended project qualification. It will be reported for the first time in school and college performance tables in January 2017.

The first tech bac trailblazers are:

Archbishop Holgate’s school, a high performing school in York, which will deliver tech level qualifications in art and design, IT and engineering as part of the tech bac trailblazer.

Barnet and Southgate college, one of the largest colleges in north London, where students will study tech levels in engineering, motorsport vehicle technology, IT and construction.

Blackpool Sixth, which will offer tech bac programmes in three key vocational areas: engineering, IT and creative media production.

Blessed George Napier Catholic school and sixth form in Oxfordshire, which will deliver tech level qualifications in travel and tourism and IT as part of the tech bac trailblazer.

Brockenhurst college in Hampshire, which offers a tech level in engineering that is publicly recognised by a number of professional bodies, including the Engineering Council, the Engineers Professors’ Council, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the employer Leibherr.

South Cheshire college, which will offer full tech bac programmes to all students studying tech levels in IT and engineering.

Warwickshire College, which will focus its tech bac trailblazer activities on a tech level qualification in manufacturing engineering.

Further details of the four categories of technical and vocational qualifications for 14 to 19-year-olds and the technical baccalaureate measure, which have been the subject of previous announcements, are available on gov.uk.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will be held on 19 June 2014 in Luxembourg.

The Council will finalise its contribution to the European Council to take place on 26 and 27 June 2014. The European semester 2014 discussion will focus on a number of documents linked to the European semester. There will also be a separate discussion on the social dimension of the European monetary union.

Council will seek a general approach on the European platform of undeclared work and will provide an update on a regulation for a European network of employment services (EURES). There will also be updates on directives on equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation and gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges.

Ministers will consider a set of Council conclusions on women and the economy.

Under any other business the presidency will provide updates on legislative files and other issues. There will also be information on the International Labour Organisation conference 2014 and the Roma summit. Finally, the Italian delegation will outline the work programme of their forthcoming presidency of the Council which begins on 1 July.

House of Lords

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 18 June 2014.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Russia: Arms

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked by

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of an arms race between Russia and the West.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, we and our allies monitor developments closely. Russia and the West have reduced defence spending substantially since the Cold War. Russia is now increasing its military capabilities, although it is unclear whether it will be able to sustain its plans. There is certainly a need not to allow western defence spending to be reduced too far. At present we assess the likelihood of an arms race between Russia and the West to be small.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

I am grateful for that Answer. The Minister will be aware that, for some years now, western defence expenditure has been dropping, while Russian defence expenditure has increased in real terms by almost 5%. One explanation for this is modernisation, but my key question for the Minister is whether we are taking this opportunity to involve ourselves in talks with Russia to make sure that we do not drift into another arms race, given the opposite directions of travel of defence expenditure in Russia and the West.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, the view of HMG—and, indeed, that of successive Governments—has been that all our disputes around the world, including those with Russia, should be resolved amicably through diplomatic means. However, of course we maintain a defence posture that has to be flexible and adaptable, and NATO is an essential element of that.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. Would she agree that there are at least two substantial areas of great common interest? For Russia, the recent changes in Iraq and what is now also happening in Syria are of great significance and require discussion within the western world as well. Would she also agree that, in order to make sure that Ukraine retains its national integrity, there should be recognition that eastern Ukraine is part of that country alongside an agreement that we would not, for the moment, proceed with trying to make Ukraine a member of NATO?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an incredibly important point. Our common interests with Russia—and, indeed, any differences—go well beyond just the dispute in Ukraine. We have many interests on which we have worked together, whether with regard to Syria or, more recently, Iran. It is therefore important that we keep those diplomatic routes open to continue trying to resolve those matters.

On Ukraine, I have stood at this Dispatch Box and raised concerns about the amassing of troops on Ukraine’s borders. It has therefore been right for us to send air defence support for monitoring in the region, to make sure that our allies feel that we are there and are supportive.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend that the culmination of the considerable arms build-up, year after year, by Mr Putin, along with ourselves and the rest of the EU cutting our defence expenditure is extremely dangerous and should not be sustained. Would it not be deplorable and shameful if we reached a deal with Mr Putin on the basis of which the Crimeans could exercise self-determination if they wished to join Russia but Ukraine could not exercise democratic self-determination if it wished to join the EU and NATO?

[Baroness Warsi]

Each country must have the right to determine its own future, and Ukraine has indicated that it would like a closer relationship, certainly with the EU. Membership of NATO is not on the cards at the moment as regards Ukraine. However, ultimately, this is a matter which the Ukrainian people have to decide through their legitimately elected Government.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with the proposition that the aim of every Government should be to maintain the defence or military capability of this country at the level at which it is least likely to be called upon, and that to reduce it beyond a certain level invites others to make it necessary to use that capability?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. He will probably be aware that NATO has set a target for its members to retain defence spending at 2%. I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom has met that target, and has done so since the day it was met. We will meet it this year and will meet it again next year. Let us also not forget that the UK has the biggest defence budget in the EU and the second largest in NATO.

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the 2% target that she said has been achieved has been met only by taking into account spending on contingency operations? That was not the practice in the past; therefore, if one is totally honest we are not meeting that 2% target.

[Baroness Warsi]

The brief I have from my colleagues in the MoD is that we have met the 2% target, and have done so since the day that target was set. If that is not the case, I invite the noble and gallant Lord to write to my colleagues in the MoD.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the 2% target given by NATO is not altogether convincing as a rational basis for defence? Surely the most important thing for appropriate defence is an analysis of the reality of a threat and the forms that threat may take and then to meet those threats and respond accordingly? In that context, is not one of the highest priorities to make sure that Arms Trade Treaty objectives are fulfilled, and that this highly dangerous situation, with so many weapons circulating in the world, is curbed?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord is right that those things have to be set by having a proper review, which is why we had a strategic defence and security review in 2010. Arms control is part of that. Again, we can be incredibly proud of the role that the Foreign Office and the whole of HMG have played in bringing agreement at the UN as regards the Arms Trade Treaty.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

Can the noble Baroness tell the House how many members of NATO fail to meet the 2% target?

[Baroness Warsi]

I can tell the noble Baroness that four members met their target and a further four have indicated that they intend to meet the target. However, of course, there are 28 members of NATO.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, is it not important that we try to have constructive and as friendly as possible relations with Russia if we are to have a stable Europe? Can we do a little to cool some of the recent rhetoric, which has been conducive to encouraging a Cold War atmosphere?

[Baroness Warsi]

I am all for encouraging a reduction in rhetoric. That is why I have always said at this Dispatch Box that we must make sure that the language we use is measured and that we always look for diplomatic means to resolve those matters.

[Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Lab)]

My Lords, in an earlier answer to a question, the Minister was good enough to say that we should be dealing in diplomatic ways with disputes throughout the world in which we are involved. Can the Minister say whether, in her diplomatic discussions with her new-found friends the mullahs in Iran, she could ask them to bring an end to the wholesale executions of their own people that take place day after day?

[Baroness Warsi]

I think the noble Lord will accept that maintaining relations with a country and increasing those relations, as we have done with Iran—appointing a chargé d’affaires at the back end of last year and opening an embassy as we did yesterday—gives us an opportunity to deal with those more difficult issues, including the issue of human rights. I can assure the noble Lord that we shall certainly raise that issue with Iran.

Immigration: Cedars Pre-departure Accommodation

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report Cedars: two years on by Barnardo’s; and what plans they have to implement the recommendations made in that report.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office welcomes the Barnardo’s report, which has been carefully considered. Of the five recommendations, family escort teams have been implemented. Of the remainder, what was recommended is largely current policy, including use of force, which is subject to review. We are unable to accept the recommendation not to separate families as there will be occasions when this is unavoidable. Any such decisions are scrutinised at senior level and by the Independent Family Returns Panel.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the Answer and welcome her to her first time at the Dispatch Box. I want to rejoice today because in Cedars this morning there was not a single child there for immigration purposes. We have achieved what we aimed for at the time of the coalition agreement, because in 2009 more than 1,000 were children detained for immigration purposes. I am sure the whole House will agree with me in rejoicing at this fact.

However, I am not entirely happy with that Answer. I came into this coalition—I am sorry, I am not allowed to say that. Of course I welcome this coalition agreement. Is it not possible that when a family has to be separated, authority must be given at ministerial level?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for his very kind words of welcome. These separations are a last resort; they are temporary; and they are always authorised at assistant director level and with reference to the family returns panel. Where there are complex or difficult cases, they may well have to be referred up to the Minister.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, the Barnardo’s report shows an alarming instance of families being split up. Many of the children involved are unprepared to be sent to another country. They are dealing with the loss of family, dislocation and also with their parents’ anxieties, caused by the separation. What are the Government doing to help these children understand what is happening to them in the first instance? Secondly, how are they working to counter the fear and confusion these separations are causing these young children?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is undoubtedly right that this sort of separation—indeed, the whole situation—is very difficult and has to be handled very sensitively. The family escort teams have been set up in to provide support right from the beginning of the journey of return until the end. They went live on 19 May and I hope that whole family approach and whole journey approach will see an improvement in some of the distress that might be caused in these removals.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box. When do the Government intend to put in place the specialist family teams? Will Barnardo’s, which is the expert and has a vast amount of experience in this area, have an input in recruiting and training the teams? In asking that, I declare my interest as a vice-president of Barnardo’s.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I said earlier, the teams went live on 19 May, and I am very pleased about that. All people dealing with children have to be—it is almost obvious to say—CRB checked. All staff in Barnardo’s are trained in safeguarding and child-protection issues.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, the Chief Inspector of Prisons has written a subsequent report on Cedars. It describes a worrying incident where an arrest team arrived in full protective clothing and spent three minutes battering down the door of a house; there was no awareness of whether there was a child or children in the house, which could have been deeply traumatic for those young people. Does the noble Baroness agree that we need to have a full review of arrest procedures to try to prevent such situations?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the right noble Prelate for his question. I am sorry—I was so focused on the answer that I forgot the right reverend Prelate’s title. I think that there are lessons learnt from situations like that, and I know that refresher training is going on. I hope that, again, the specialist teams will provide that more consistent journey and that the lessons learnt will enable a better arrest and removal procedure in future.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box, and I hope that she enjoys the experience of sitting on the government Benches. Can I bring her back to the point that she was answering about children being separated from their families? When we had the Immigration Bill debates, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, informed the House that the Government would never separate a child from their family,

“solely for a compliance reason”.—[Official Report, 3/3/14; col. 1133.]

He said that it would be only in cases of safeguarding or welfare. That is not quite what the noble Baroness’s Answer said today. The Barnardo’s report says that families are split in one-sixth of all cases and that family splits,

“are often a plan or contingency in response to actual or potentially”,

non-compliant behaviour. That is not what the noble and learned Lord said in the debates on the Bill. Given that commitment, will any further action be taken in light of the Barnardo’s report?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. The points that I made probably cover the points that she has made, so disruptive behaviour might include welfare issues as well. I hope that I have answered that satisfactorily.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the advisory group to the Government on the detention of immigrant children which resulted in the Cedars being formed. During the passage of the Immigration Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I discussed the establishment of a code of practice that covered the whole of the extradition process, including the point made by the right reverend Prelate. Where has the Home Office got to on the work on that code of practice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will write to the noble Lord shortly about progress.

Asylum Seekers: Uganda

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people from Uganda claiming asylum on the grounds that their lives are in danger because they are gay or lesbian were (1) allowed, and (2) refused, asylum in the latest year for which figures are available; and what steps are being taken to monitor the status of any individuals returned to Uganda.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, in 2013, the UK received 226 asylum claims from Ugandans. Of the 191 decisions made in 2013, 84 were granted asylum and 107 were refused. We cannot say without a manual search of the files how many were made on the grounds of sexual orientation, as this information is not currently stored in a way that can be retrieved via IT systems. The Government do not routinely monitor the treatment of individuals removed from the UK, and individuals are returned to their own country only when the Government and courts have established that it is safe to do so.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. As she will know, the penalties against same-sex relationships in Uganda are horrendous, carrying the threat of life imprisonment with associated penalties for anybody who in any way supports lesbian, gay or bisexual relationships. Is she aware that, in the four months since those laws were passed, there have been 162 very well documented cases of the persecution of lesbian and gay people, many of them involving physical violence—and that is only the tip of the iceberg? Will she therefore please ensure that everybody involved in the asylum process is fully aware of the increasing gravity of the situation in Uganda, not just from the Government but from the populace?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is heightened awareness from the Government downwards. Given the noble and right reverend Lord’s position as a church man, it is incumbent on all of us in civil society and in politics to make what representations we can to the various organisations and government bodies in that country to stop this sort of practice.

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords, the Johns Hopkins refugee law project in Kampala has found that nearly 40% of male refugees in some Ugandan refugee camps have been victims of male rape and now live in constant fear that they will be arrested for engaging in same-sex practices under Ugandan law. In fact, research from the International Strategic Studies Association found that 90% of men in conflict countries have no legal protection in cases of male rape, and 67 countries criminalise men who report rape. So will the Government follow the advice from the refugee law project to strengthen the investigative and humanitarian services dealing with sexual violence and revise the training of immigration services assessing the asylum applications from male rape victims fleeing conflict countries?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, work is going on to dig down to discover the type of asylum claims that are being made, and we hope to have some information towards the end of the year. However, no one will have failed to notice the conference on ending sexual violence in conflict which took place here last week. We lead the way in many areas of human rights, and the legalisation of gay marriage in this country is certainly a step forward in terms of human rights and equality. I think that we can be leaders in this area.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, you do not need to feel much empathy to understand fully the fear and terror felt by gay men and women in Uganda, who risk life imprisonment or the death penalty just for being themselves. It is clear that there has been an increase in reports of violent attacks on gay people since the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2014. Given the figures that the noble Baroness has just given us about the number of people who applied for asylum in this country and were either refused or accepted, what training and advice are being given to the immigration officials who have to make a judgment on these asylum claims?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question—she raises an important point. The figures on asylum refusals and acceptances may not be based on the same year: in other words, the figures for 2013 do not necessarily relate to the applications for 2013. It is, as I say, a very important point. I have forgotten the second part of the noble Baroness’s question.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I was asking about the training and advice given to the immigration officials who have to make a judgment on these asylum claims.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There have been a few high-profile cases where completely inappropriate questions have been asked, and that has led to the training being refreshed for those who conduct such interviews. There is no need to provide sexually explicit material in an asylum application interview, and that is being made clear to applicants. We also work with partners such as Stonewall, the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group and the UNHCR to develop the framework for the interview. The interview does not seek to prove that somebody is LGBT but rather to establish that the claim is valid.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the reasons why there has been an increase in the number of people seeking asylum on these grounds is the passage of legislation in countries such as Uganda but also Nigeria, Burundi and elsewhere, which has increasingly criminalised people’s personal sexuality? Does she further agree that this is something that should be raised directly through the Commonwealth, as a number of the countries involved are members of the Commonwealth and share our values?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is an important point. Many of the claims for asylum in the past year have come from countries such as Syria and Eritrea, but we are for ever vigilant about these types of cases and continue to make representations to the Commonwealth and to the offending Governments. Uganda is not the only country involved.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, in answer to an earlier question the noble Baroness said that the Government do not have statistics on the number of people who claim asylum here on grounds of their sexuality. Given the importance of this issue and the penalties faced by those returning to some of the countries where homosexuality is criminalised—possibly life imprisonment or even the death penalty—should not the Government reconsider this point and keep statistics not only on the number of those who claim asylum on these grounds but, sadly, on the number of those who, having claimed asylum on those grounds, are returned to their countries of origin?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said in an earlier response, this is exactly what the Home Office is seeking to do—to dig down into the information that we have, and to establish where those asylum claims might be coming from and what types of claims they are.

Economy: Interest Rates

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked by

[Lord Barnett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the analysis of likely interest rate movements by the Governor of the Bank of England.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the UK’s monetary policy framework, set out in the Bank of England Act 1998, gives operational responsibility for monetary policy to the independent Monetary Policy Committee, the MPC. Decisions on setting bank rates are for the judgment of the MPC, with the aim of meeting the inflation target of 2% in the medium term.

[Lord Barnett (Lab)]

My Lords, I take it from that that the noble Lord is saying that the Chancellor agreed with the Governor of the Bank of England. It was a long-winded Answer but I assume that was what was saying. It has very serious consequences in many different areas for people who are already paying interest rates of well above 0.5%. However, the biggest problem is growth. At the moment it is very good, but the consequences of higher interest rates could be very serious for growth, and could mean that growth levels might not be sustainable. What evidence does the Minister have for saying that inflation is going to rise so much that we require this interest rate hike?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I did not actually say that. As the noble Lord is aware, the level of inflation at the moment is at a low of 1.5%. The Governor of the Bank of England has made it clear, through the work in reviewing forward guidance, that interest rates will rise when the Bank believes that excess capacity in the economy is being used up and where the forward outlook is for higher inflation over a two-year period, which is the remit of the MPC. The Bank has made it very clear, though, that any increase in interest rates, whenever it takes place, will be gradual, and that any new equilibrium rate of interest that is reached is likely to be significantly less than the 5% that obtained before the financial crash.

[Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)]

Does my noble friend not agree that it is useful to set the current rate of interest in context? For instance, if one looks at the period during which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the median rate was something like 10%, and rose to even 15%. Is it not quite an achievement to retain a level of interest rates below 3%, and should we make sure that people do not fear a rise, exaggerate it and damage economic growth?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, that is an important point. As I said in answer to the earlier question, any increase in interest rates is likely to be gradual and to reach a new equilibrium that is lower than it was in the past. It is worth saying that mortgage payments are at a historically low level in terms of proportion of income, and that rates would have to rise by 4% to get to the 2007 proportion of income. Nobody, I think, whether it is the Bank of England or independent experts, has suggested that interest rates are likely to rise by that much in the foreseeable future.

[Lord Peston (Lab)]

My Lords, to place this important Question in context, is it the Government’s view that there are two possible aims of economic policy: the first is that we should maintain as high a rate of real, sustainable growth as is feasible, and the second is that we should maintain a stable, low inflation rate? Bearing in mind that those two objectives are not always compatible, what is the Government’s view of what the policymakers ought to be doing at the moment?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government have given the MPC the role of ensuring that inflation stays as near as possible to 2%. As the noble Lord knows, subject to that, the Government have given the committee the role of pursuing their policies in terms of employment and growth. Separate to what the Bank is doing, the Government have set in train a whole raft of policies, whether they be apprenticeships, reducing national insurance payable by businesses or increasing tax-free investment allowances, which we believe will lead to growth—non-inflationary growth. It is extremely interesting in terms of those two, as he says, incompatible points, that during the life of this Government we have been able to generate an additional 2 million jobs, and inflation over the period has, if anything, fallen.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, is it not simply the case that the 0.5% policy rate was a crisis rate, set because of the economic crisis in which this country was plunged, and the fact that we are now likely gradually to come to more normal rates of interest is a tribute to the fact that we are successfully emerging from that crisis?

[Lord Newby]

The noble Lord is exactly right. One of the benefits of a gradual increase in interest rates will be that savers, who have had a very poor return on their savings, will start to get what they would consider a more normal return in the future.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government contemplate giving forewarning of a rise in interest rates? It is quite clear that people have become used to this very low rate indeed, and the Minister is beginning to indicate that it is not going to be tolerated for much longer.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, there is incessant speculation in the media about when interest rates might rise. The Governor of the Bank of England and the MPC’s inflation report help to guide people as to when this is likely to be the case. In February, the latest inflation report set out a number of criteria against which the Bank would judge when rates should rise. Anybody is capable of seeing how the economy is going and reading what both the governor and commentators say about when such rate rises are likely.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:36

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Special Educational Needs (Personal Budgets) Regulations 2014

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:37

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 April be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report, Session 2013-14, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on Monday 16 June.

Motion agreed.

Crime and Courts Act 2013 (County Court and Family Court: Consequential Provision) Order 2014

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2014

Transfer of Tribunal Functions (Mobile Homes Act 2013 and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2014

Motions to Approve

15:37

[Lord Faulks]

Moved by

That the draft orders laid before the House on 9 April and 6 and 14 May be approved.

Relevant documents: 26th and 27th Reports, Session 2013-14, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on Monday 16 June.

Motions agreed.

Representation of the People (Supply of Information) Regulations 2014

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:38

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6 May be approved.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on Monday 16 June.

Motion agreed.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:38

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, it is four years since the general election, when the coalition partners made a pledge to the British people to cut our deficit and get our economy growing once again. I am pleased to say those promises are very evidently being delivered. From the start we were clear that poor infrastructure in our country was among the biggest obstacles to growth.

We set out the most ambitious programme of investment and improvement for generations, investing a record £100 billion in schemes to improve our roads and railways, build affordable homes and boost our internet access. After decades in which successive Governments neglected our infrastructure, we also had to find ways to modernise the delivery of that infrastructure, to overcome administrative hurdles and to accelerate planning. This Bill will establish a new framework to allow stable long-term funding, to get better value for money and relieve unnecessary red tape. It will improve planning processes and allow us to get on with our building programme. It will help us to direct funding towards the best projects, improving returns and creating the right conditions for sustainable growth. It will boost jobs and economic competitiveness across areas such as transport, energy and housing, and it will speed up infrastructure development while ensuring that communities remain involved.

Your Lordships will be aware that the Government have committed more than £24 billion to upgrade England’s strategic road network between 2011 and 2021. We are also investing in maintaining our network, resurfacing 80% by 2021. We want roads to be in top condition to keep traffic running smoothly and are working with industry suppliers to accelerate delivery of road renewal. We are making the biggest investment in roads since the 1970s. Our national road network is being transformed to provide a world-class strategic network, tackling congestion, improving reliability and supporting jobs and growth.

Part 1 of the Bill will turn the Highways Agency into a government-owned company, with the stable, long-term funding needed to plan ahead effectively. We are also introducing in the Bill the framework for a roads investment strategy. The strategy will be agreed by the Government and the new company. It will set out the Government’s longer-term strategic vision for the strategic road network, investment plans and performance criteria, along with the necessary funding, just as happens for the railways. The new delivery model will allow the company to better prioritise its spending in terms of both maintenance requirements and capital demands. This is bound to lead to better asset management than we have now.

These measures are expected to save the taxpayer at least £2.6 billion over the next 10 years and will make the new arm’s-length company more directly responsible for delivery. Performance will be assessed through an independent monitor specialising in roads, based in the Office of Rail Regulation. Road users will also be given a voice through a road user watchdog based in Passenger Focus.

It is vital that we invest in our infrastructure. The Government have made a huge financial commitment to 2021. Now we need to get the best return on that investment, and putting an end to the stop/start nature of managing the supply chain is essential. To give but one example, since the 1950s it has been planned to upgrade the A453 from Nottingham to the M1 to a dual carriageway. Proposals have started and stopped four times in the intervening years as Governments have changed their minds and gone back to the drawing board. It was only in 2012 that the work finally started. It is important that we end stop/start. It is also important that we look after our infrastructure.

Part of looking after our infrastructure is controlling the invasive non-native species that pose serious threats. The cost to the transport sector from invasive non-native species in Great Britain was estimated in 2008 to be about £81 million a year. The total cost to the economy of invasive non-native species is estimated at £1.7 billion per annum. This burden affects agriculture, horticulture and infrastructure.

In contrast to powers available under animal and plant health legislation to combat disease and pests, the nature conservation bodies have no powers to require landowners to act or powers of entry to carry out work themselves in respect of invasive non-native species, and they have to rely on reaching voluntary agreements. While most landowners are willing to enter into voluntary agreements, experience has shown that about 5% are not. The changes included in Part 2 will give powers for Ministers and nature conservation bodies in England and Wales to make species control orders that will require landowners to take action against invasive non-native species or permit the bodies to do so.

Early eradication is key to reducing eradication costs. The cost of eradicating water primrose has been estimated to be £73,000 if we eradicate it at its initial stage but more than £240 million if we allow it to become widespread in Great Britain.

When planning nationally significant infrastructure projects, it was never the aim to make the process burdensome for obtaining further development consents. Part 3 shows the Government’s commitment to increasing the pace of delivery for new developments and to manage our land assets more effectively. The Government are committed to securing investment in new nationally significant infrastructure projects as part of their efforts to rebuild the economy and to create new jobs. We want to speed up the process and get Britain building for our future.

Applications are large and detailed documents—up to 50,000 pages or more. Allowing inspectors to be appointed once the application has been accepted, rather than once it has been publicised, will give inspectors an additional six to eight weeks to become familiar with the issues. In addition, we will allow two inspectors to be appointed as examiners: at present one, three, four and five are allowed but not two. Since the workload is often too much for one inspector but not enough for three, around £200,000 a year can be saved by developers if an examination is conducted with two inspectors rather than three.

Currently, the process for making changes to a development consent order once consent has been granted is lengthy. The process is the same as if a completely new application is being submitted. A simpler process is required but only for very minor changes. This the Bill will now allow.

It is equally important to improve the procedure for discharging planning conditions so that local projects can proceed without unnecessary delay. The Bill introduces a deemed discharge for certain types of planning conditions which will help to ensure that conditions which require the approval of the local planning authority are discharged in a timely manner so that development, including new housing, that has already received planning permission can proceed, providing much needed certainty for applicants as to when decisions can be expected.

The issue of improving the outcomes for applicants around discharge of planning conditions is not new. A key recommendation of Joanna Killian and David Pretty’s comprehensive review of the planning application process in 2008 was that the Government should seek to speed up the process for discharging planning conditions. This included looking to introduce a default approval.

One of the ways in which we can stimulate the economy is by getting better use of public sector land assets by utilising surplus land that the Government own. The Homes and Communities Agency, the HCA, is a non-departmental public body that funds new affordable housing in England. We want to make it easier for the agency to work with local partners to create new affordable homes and thriving neighbourhoods.

The new public sector land programme from 2015-16 will see the transfer of a significant amount of surplus land from government departments and government arm’s-length bodies to the HCA. Land transfers from arm’s-length bodies can be administratively burdensome in terms of time and cost because they cannot be made to the HCA directly; instead the land has to be transferred first to a parent government department. We would like to ensure that in the future these transfers can be made more quickly and with reduced administration, so the Bill allows for a direct transfer to the HCA.

The Bill also corrects what was frankly an oversight in the legislation that set up the Homes and Communities Agency, the Greater London Authority and the mayoral development corporations. At present when these bodies purchase land they, like every other government body, override existing easements. However, unlike every other government body they cannot sell the land with the override in place. This Bill eliminates this anomaly, although it will not be used by bodies such as the Forestry Commission or National Parks, contrary to some recent, wholly unfounded, speculation. This applies only to private rights and not to those that are public.

The purchase and indeed development of property requires good, timely, accurate information. The Bill therefore sets up the framework for the Land Registry to modernise and digitise property searches. It will centralise and digitise local land charge information from the 348 local authorities that currently hold and deliver it. The result will be a far more efficient and cheaper service. The Land Registry will set a standardised national fee and turnaround time in contrast to the existing postcode lottery. Fees currently range between £3 and £96. A single source for improved access to property information will support a more streamlined conveyancing process and improve the ease of registering a property in England and Wales. We want our renewable energy developers to work with local communities, allowing them to share in the benefits of renewable energy infrastructure projects. Part 4 would give communities the right to invest in their local renewable electricity schemes, transforming how they engage in these types of projects. It would give them the opportunity to have a real stake and sense of ownership in projects happening on their doorsteps.

The measures that I have discussed above are on the face of the Bill. In the Queen’s Speech and in other discussions, the Government have however drawn attention to other measures that are not on the face of the Bill at present but may be included by future amendments. These measures have specifically been: enhancing the United Kingdom’s energy independence and security by opening up access to shale and geothermal sites, maximising North Sea resources, and the construction of zero-carbon homes.

A third of UK energy demand is met by gas. If we do not develop shale, by 2025 we expect to be importing close to 70% of the gas that we consume. The Government therefore support the development of our own indigenous energy sources in a safe and sustainable manner. We believe that shale gas and oil and deep geothermal energy may hold huge potential for adding to the UK’s energy sources, helping to improve energy security, create jobs and meet carbon targets. We consider that the existing procedure for gaining underground access to be burdensome and unfit for new methods of drilling. A public consultation on underground access was opened on 23 May and will conclude on 15 August.

Subject to that consultation, future amendments to the Bill would provide companies with access for shale and geothermal extraction 300 metres or more below the surface without requiring individual landowner permission. In return, a payment would be made to the community. As I said, the Government’s consultation on this policy continues until 15 August 2014 and the legislation is entirely dependent on the outcome of that consultation.

I am well aware, however, that some noble Lords are concerned about the potential environmental impact of extraction from shale. The UK has over 50 years’ experience of regulating the onshore oil and gas industry. More than 2,000 wells have been drilled onshore during that time. The Government are confident that the UK oil and gas industry, including shale gas, will continue to be well regulated and any risks, particularly environmental risks, will be effectively mitigated.

The UK oil and gas industry is of national importance; it makes a substantial contribution to the economy, supporting around 450,000 jobs, and had record capital expenditure in 2013 of around £14 billion. Oil and gas will continue to be a vital part of the energy mix as we transition to a low-carbon economy, with indigenous oil and gas production supplying the equivalent of about half the UK’s primary energy demands.

Sir Ian Wood’s independent report in 2014 recommended changes to the recovery and stewardship regime, estimating that full and rapid implementation would deliver at least 3 billion to 4 billion barrels of oil equivalent—more than would otherwise be recovered over the next 20 years. The report, in turn, estimates that this would bring over £200 billion additional value to the UK economy.

The Government accepted Wood’s recommendations in full in February 2014, and plan to introduce measures in the Bill to put the principle of maximising economic recovery of petroleum in the UK into statute. We also intend to introduce a power so that the costs of funding a larger, better-resourced regulator can be paid for by industry rather than by the taxpayer as is currently the case. This legislation is still being developed and will be made available at the earliest opportunity. It is our intention to introduce it before the end of Committee.

The Government have made a public commitment to ensure that new homes in England are zero carbon from 2016 onwards. Emissions from all homes represent over one-quarter of the total annual output of carbon emissions in the United Kingdom. It is crucial that we reduce this. The key consideration for the Government is to ensure that environmental policies are balanced against the need for continued economic growth in the housing sector.

The average bill for heating and lighting an older home is around £1,200 a year. In new homes, the amount would be less, and government changes to the building regulations have already reduced this amount by £200, with a further tightening of regulations having just come into force. New homes will be required to reduce all carbon emissions from energy used to heat and light those homes to zero. There will be a stronger energy-efficiency requirement, met by insulation measures, which may be augmented by on-site renewable energy measures such as solar panels. Where it is not possible to abate all these carbon emissions through energy efficiency measures—for example, through insulation or on-site renewable energy measures such as solar panels—the Government will allow developers to off-set those emissions that represent the difference through “allowable solutions”.

The principle of allowable solutions has been broadly accepted by the development industry as the most cost-effective way of delivering zero-carbon homes. A typical allowable solution measure might be either the retrofit of existing homes, particularly through solid wall insulation, or financial contributions for investment in low-carbon or renewable energy infrastructure. An explanation of how these schemes may work will be available for Committee stage.

In summary, the measures in the Bill will help create a better environment for investment in infrastructure across the transport, energy and land development sectors. The Government firmly believe in making it easier, quicker and simpler to get Britain building for our future. The Bill will help us build a stronger and more competitive economy that creates jobs, and provides families and businesses with better and reliable infrastructure to help us compete in the world.

15:56

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the Bill so clearly and lucidly. On this side of the House, I am delighted to be supported on the Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Davies, who will lead in Committee, and by my noble friends Lady Worthington and Lord McKenzie of Luton.

As the Minister recognised in her opening remarks, we face big infrastructure challenges on transport, on energy and on housing in particular. Although the Bill contains some useful provisions, the position, I suggest to the House, is that we have the big infrastructure needs of the country on the one hand, and this Bill on the other. They are like ships passing in the night, except that the Bill is perhaps more like a dinghy than a ship: it is no match for the high seas and, indeed, parts of it do not even exist. We still do not have the clauses related to fracking, and consultations on that issue and important issues relating to the Land Registry and community electricity are still incomplete—some have not even commenced.

The noble Baroness said, if I noted it down correctly, that this legislation is “still being developed”. If I may say so, that is one of the most remarkable statements I have heard from a Minister while introducing a Bill, which the House would expect to be fully developed at the point of introduction. Instead, we have a major heading, “Fracking”, and a long spiel from the noble Baroness about how this will be vital for the future energy needs of the country, but the following pages are blank. With respect, that is no way to treat Parliament or your Lordships. In the vernacular, the Government are legislating on the hoof—or perhaps I should say on the future hoof, as we do not even know what hoof they are going to be legislating on hereafter.

Still on the big picture, the World Economic Forum recognises infrastructure as one of the 12 pillars of global competitiveness. However, continued weak infrastructure investment has seen Britain’s global rank significantly slip. We are now ranked 28th for the overall quality of infrastructure, compared to 19th in 2006-07, and we are significantly behind our European neighbours, including France, Germany and Spain, with the US far ahead.

That is not to say that there have not been improvements: there have, particularly in rail infrastructure, but there have not been enough. The essential challenge is not to make largely tinkering changes to the law but for the Government to take some big decisions—which the current law does nothing to prevent—on building the new power stations, runways, bridges, roads and, above all, houses that are needed so urgently by the country.

However, we have to scrutinise the Bill before us, so I turn to its main provisions. Part 1 and Schedules 1 to 3 make provision for the appointment of strategic highways companies to manage strategic roads in England, in place of the Highways Agency. The strategic road network represents only 2% of the English road network, yet it carries more than a third of car and van traffic and more than 65% of heavy vehicle traffic so obviously it needs to be well managed. We support giving greater operational freedom to front-line managers but the question is: will the management be better under the proposed company or companies than under the existing Highways Agency? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could give us some indication of how the very large figure that she mentioned in her speech— £2.6 billion of savings—is actually going to be made up.

The Highways Agency already operates at arm’s length from Ministers. It currently lets its maintenance and construction contracts to the private sector so it is unclear what efficiency gains are being projected in that respect. Its sources of finance depend almost entirely on the state because we have few tolls and fees and no road pricing, and this will continue to be the case under these companies as privatisation has been ruled out—unless of course the noble Baroness wishes to say that there may be future plans for tolls or road pricing. I take it that there are not. In that case, the sources of finance will remain as they are now, which raises the issue of how greater income generation or efficiency will be secured. There are no obvious improvements in the way in which the national and local road networks interact, which is an issue of genuine concern. The key issue is greater certainty over medium-term and long-term funding but there is no need to create a new company to give greater certainty over future funding. The Government could simply announce a detailed five-year settlement for strategic roads in any event.

The noble Baroness’s mention of stop/start was almost as remarkable a statement as, “This legislation is still being developed”. The reason there has been stop/start over the past four years is that the Government stopped and then they started again. They did not have to do that. They could have announced and stuck to a longer-term funding plan, and it is entirely within their prerogative to do so. However, if the simple act of setting up this company constrains the ability of Governments to stop and start in respect of roads investment, it will none the less be worth while. But until we see the detailed five-year settlement for 2015-20 we are not in a position to judge.

On the proposed company, I have four points to make. First, the unhappy experience with the Ministry of Defence government company in the Defence Reform Bill suggests that the success of this model depends on the clarity of the process for selecting the company, the quality of information provided to the company, the scope of services the company is being asked to provide, and how its performance will be measured. Simply setting up a company is no panacea.

Secondly, on the roads investment strategy, the proposal for ring-fencing funding for investment in the roads and a requirement to respond to a high-level output specification in the same way as Network Rail is, as I have said, a good idea in principle, but the legal architecture around it is vague. Where Network Rail is concerned, there is a well trodden process of settlement with the Office of Rail Regulation under the Railways Act regime. There is nothing that comes close to this in respect of roads. It seems to be the Government simply announcing a five-year road settlement. Will the Minister say more about how the settlement will be set in relation to the high-level output specification? Will there be some independent judgment as to whether the resources are sufficient to deliver the high-level output specification? Can she say when we will see the high-level output specification?

Thirdly, on the provisions regarding the Office of Rail Regulation, the proposal is that the ORR’s remit can be stretched to scrutinise the efficiency of the highways companies as well. But the ORR is obviously not sufficiently equipped or experienced to do this at the moment and we need to know how it is rapidly going to become so.

Fourthly, on accountability, Graham Dalton, the chief executive of the Highways Agency, says that these reforms will enable the Highways Agency to “set its own destiny”. That sounds very liberating but what if that destiny, decision by decision, arouses controversy and opposition, as in many cases it will, in respect of road schemes? At the moment, as I know from, to coin a phrase, the scars on my back—the noble Baroness probably has some as well—it is Ministers who mediate when there are controversial issues relating to road schemes, often at quite a detailed level. Stone curlews and their relocation to make it possible to dual the A11 to Norwich is etched on my mind as taking many hours of discussions in my office, and no doubt the noble Baroness can give equivalent examples. At the moment it is Ministers who mediate, and many MPs and Members of your Lordships’ House will, when it comes to controversial issues relating to road schemes and upgrades, want that to continue to be the case.

Under the Bill, there is to be a Passengers’ Council, which is a reform of the existing quango Passenger Focus, but it is hard to see how it will have the credibility and clout that Ministers currently exercise. Furthermore, as I understand it, the Passengers’ Council will be mandated only to promote and protect the interests of users of highways for which the highways company or companies are responsible. The Passengers’ Council will not represent the interests of communities along the road or the natural environment. That is a very important point. Who will represent their interests and take account of them? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify those issues. There is a lot for us to debate further about the new structure of the Highways Agency.

Moving to other issues, on invasive non-native species, there will be a lot for us to scrutinise in species control orders, the protection of animal welfare and the proposed powers of entry. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has a great deal to say about all that, but obviously we support a proper control regime to effect eradication or control of invasive non-native species where they pose threats to biodiversity, the water environment, economic prosperity or health and welfare.

Turning to planning and land, on major infrastructure projects and the Planning Act, Clause 18 provides that examinations of projects may be conducted by panels of two inspectors. The noble Baroness said that there are large potential savings from that, but as it is to be the lead examiner who decides in cases of disagreement, does that not make the second examiner distinctly second-class? Is that not precisely why it is odd numbers of inspectors—one, three or five—who are appointed at present?

On land, the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State can transfer public land directly to the Homes and Communities Agency and the agency can then dispose of it to developers. We see benefits in having a less bureaucratic, expedited regime for land transfer, but accountability and reasonableness will be important. It is not clear how they are to be provided under the new regime. In particular, is it correct that there will be no need in any circumstances to go through local planning application processes before land is transferred in that way? Is it also the case that the proposed change may allow public rights of way to be extinguished? As the Minister said, concerns have been raised in respect of protected environments and public amenities; for example, the status of forests and land for recreational use. That is a vital issue. I noted what the noble Baroness said about that in her speech. I hope that her assurances are watertight. Otherwise we may need to propose exemptions at a later stage to safeguard vital public interests.

Clauses 23 and 24 on the Land Registry, transferring local land charges from local authorities to the Chief Land Registrar and extending the powers of the Chief Land Registrar raise a whole host of issues, particularly if the Land Registry is to be privatised, as leaked documents suggest. My noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton will have a lot more to say about that in his speech. Perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten us as to why a company that returns £100 million a year to the Treasury and is thought to be doing a good job needs to be sold off.

Clauses 19 and 20 propose to simplify the process of making changes to development consent orders and the discharge of conditions attached to planning applications. The Government say that that is due to concerns about delays with planning authorities discharging planning conditions, but obviously there will be concern that that will simply allow developers to ignore planning requirements. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell us what evidence there is to support the notion that it is local planning authorities which are delaying the discharge of conditions at the moment. In her reply or in writing, perhaps she might tell us how many decisions regarding the discharge of planning conditions have been delayed and therefore merit this legislation. Is there any evidence to suggest that it is other statutory consultees who are holding up the process and, as this is all related to housebuilding, can she say what impact this will actually have on the level of housebuilding?

On fracking, we do not have the provisions at the moment, as I said, but the Government have put it up in lights. If the intention is to put shale gas production in line with the coal industry, water and sewerage, all of which have access to underground land, then we welcome this in principle. I endorse the potential gains that the noble Baroness mentioned as being well worth securing if it is possible to develop shale gas in this way. But communities need to be reassured about impacts on the environment, including methane levels, contamination of the water table and seismic shifts.

However, the big and immediate issue on energy, whatever the potential long-term gains from fracking, is the need for new power stations. According to a recent survey by the CBI and KPMG, two-thirds of British companies fear that UK infrastructure will deteriorate over the next five years and their most critical concern is about energy. Britain’s supply of electricity is dangerously close to demand. The safety margin of capacity has been shrinking and now stands well below the 20% necessary to ensure against shocks. Thanks to its antiquity and the demands of environmental legislation, roughly one-fifth of existing generating capacity will drop out of the system over the next decade.

As I said in the debate on the Address a fortnight ago, plans for delivering new gas and nuclear power stations are well behind the curve. Ministers talk about a dozen new nuclear power plants but only two are yet proceeding. As for gas, because of a lack of clarity and confidence in the Government’s capacity mechanism for encouraging new supply, we are facing a situation where existing gas stations may be mothballed with little appetite for new plants. On renewables, to repeat what is becoming a truism, there are two Governments at the moment: DECC, under Ed Davey, is in favour while DCLG, under Eric Pickles, repeatedly turns down applications for extra wind capacity. On all this, the Bill is irrelevant. There is already an Energy Act and what we need now are concrete proposals and consents and viable funding arrangements.

It is the same issue regarding a large part of the transport infrastructure that is required. Where are the plans? It is great that Crossrail 2 and HS2 are proceeding but where are the plans for new airport capacity in the south-east of England? All we have is a commission, which is not due to report for at least another year, because for the entirety of this Parliament the Government have not been able even to form a view, let alone take a decision. I am told that later this year, for the first time in 350 years, Britain will no longer have the world’s largest port or airport. That accolade will pass, symbolically, to Dubai.

It is the same situation year after year with there being no plan in respect of the new lower Thames crossing—vital infrastructure to relieve the Dartford crossing, the most congested short stretch on the entire Highways Agency network. I published three options for the new lower Thames crossing five years ago. Since then, three options have been reduced to two but there still has not been a government decision in respect of those two. It does not need a Highways Agency company to build the new lower Thames crossing; it just needs a Government and a Minister who can take a decision and see it through. The new crossing would be entirely paid for by tolls, so there is no public expenditure implication at all.

Above all, the Bill barely scratches the surface of the UK’s chronic shortage of housing. The rate of housebuilding is lower than at any time since the 1920s. Less than half the 250,000 new homes a year required are being built nationally and less than a third of the 60,000 required in London. There are estimated to be 150,000 unemployed construction workers, costing the economy up to £2.1 billion a year in unemployment benefits and lost tax revenue. Yet this situation has been getting worse, with 40,000 jobs lost in the construction industry last year. On current projections based on the low rates of housebuilding, employment in construction will still be 11% below its 2008 peak in 2018.

This is an infrastructure problem with huge social consequences. Rapid house price inflation, driven by shortage of supply, is pricing many out of home ownership, with average house prices nationally close to seven times the average income. With home ownership becoming increasingly elusive, many are turning to the private rented sector where the housing stock is often of poor quality and unable to keep up with demand. Almost one in seven people in the UK now rent, including 1.3 million families with children. One-third of these properties fail to meet the decent home standards, and the number of homeless households has risen to more than 50,000 a year. On almost all of this the Bill is silent, yet this is the biggest infrastructure issue that we face as a country.

As for the Government’s national infrastructure plan, I simply note that at the most recent count 355 projects and programmes—that is, 55% of the total of 646 that are in the pipeline—were not under construction or even part of an active programme of investment. So we face big infrastructure challenges. According to the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, a lack of investment in infrastructure is costing the UK around £78 billion a year in lost output. Our total infrastructure stock as a proportion of GDP is less than India, the US, China, Italy, Switzerland, South Africa and Poland. In March 2012 the Prime Minister said:

“I want to set out a vision for this country’s infrastructure in the 21st century; what we need, how we can pay for it and some specific steps that we are going to take”.

We still need that vision today.

16:10

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill, which starts to lay a foundation for the most important infrastructure skeleton of our country. It deals with certain areas but many other parts of the government programme have already dealt with parts of the infrastructure. For instance, superfast broadband is rolling out very effectively across the country.

I refute what has been said about the power network. Sure, there are challenges there, but the Energy Act is there to fix that problem and decarbonise the electricity generating network in future. In terms of the levy control framework and other financial indicators, it is already over demand. As for renewables, nuclear is moving ahead and that whole area is being tackled quite successfully. The problems of undercapacity in that sector, given the gestation period of investment in the power industry, certainly did not start in 2010; that is absolutely for sure. We have a new and effective infrastructure to ensure that the power industry can meet demand. I am also very pleased to say, although I do not want to move off to this subject too much, that we have a Government who recognise that there are two sides to that equation, which was never recognised before: there is demand as well as supply, and we are starting to move ahead in that area as well.

In rail, obviously there is HS2, but it is often forgotten that we have a rail investment programme that is worth some £38 billion over the next five years beyond that project, as well as Crossrail. In ports, through private sector investment, London Gateway, Felixstowe and Southampton are all going through major developments. Port of Tyne, which I visited not so long ago, is also developing very strongly.

One of the things that the commission has shown so far is that there is no crisis in runways. This is very much talked up by the lobbyists from the airport and runway industry and, although it needs to be sorted for the future, it is not as immediate as we sometimes think it is.

So I very much welcome the Bill within that broader context. I am not sure just how important it is that the Highways Agency is, interestingly, becoming highways companies—not just one but maybe many—but what is important in the Bill is that we start to get down to having programmes that can be planned and relied on over a number of years, which means that the cost of that infrastructure starts to come down. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will be talking much more about this area later in the debate.

I want to move on to some of the energy areas in particular. I think that the provisions that are being brought forward are excellent. The community energy right is a major step forward that should have happened long ago. The Government have taken the community aspects of energy very seriously. That was not the case before. Here we have the ability of local communities to invest in schemes above five megawatts. There is some criticism of that figure, but I think it is about right in terms of scale. They can invest in those schemes and take local benefit in various financial ways. We will discuss them in Committee. That is a major step forward in the community approach to energy projects in this country, where the resistance to renewable energy is not nearly as great as some people in this House would portray. Renewable energy will be much more important if communities are able to invest themselves.

That is true of what we hope will come through in the clauses on fracking, with direct community benefit, which will be important. We need to change the trespass legislation to bring it in line with many other areas. I am tantalised by the fact that there is such a positive reaction to geothermal energy, which is also affected by this change in legislation. In the Queen’s Speech debate, I started to ask what else the Government can do to help us kick-start the technology for geothermal energy and ensure there is that legal change. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that it has great potential for us as a country. I agree that fracking is important for our energy security in the medium term in terms of gas provision. However, in moving towards decarbonisation, gas can be only a transition energy source but it can be an important part of that formula, given the major decline in North Sea oil production.

Low-carbon homes are not in the Bill at present as we are going out to consultation, which seems a good thing to do. This House will have plenty of time to consider those clauses, probably in Committee after the Recess. I am very pleased that the Government are nailing their colours to the mast over zero-carbon homes. One of my great concerns has been that there will be a major erosion of that and that the proposals rightly put forward by the previous Government, and the commitment made by them, would be lost. We know that that will not be the case. There is some sense in the allowable solutions formula, which means that there is some leeway in finding off-site ways to come to a zero-carbon equation. Having said that, in Committee and on Report we will make sure that that is done through strong controls. I would not like to see a method by which developers can find a way around the regulations and the allowable changes get forgotten in the process. That is a risk we must avoid.

My other area of concern is that we are consulting on excluding smaller developments. I am sure this will come through in the consultation, and I hope the Government will reconsider. I do not see the logic of excluding small developments from the definition of zero-carbon homes. There might be some idea that small housebuilders do not or should not have the skills needed to met this level of insulation and energy-saving. That is wrong and creates barriers to those housebuilders. It is nothing to do with red tape, but is just building to the standards that people are supposed to build to. The greatest challenge may be to ensure that current building regulations are enforced, which we often find does not happen enough. That is perhaps the core issue: enforcing existing regulations and legislation.

Smaller developments often take place in rural communities, where energy is more expensive than in urban areas because they are often off the gas grid. By building homes that have lower energy efficiency, we are potentially giving those more rural and isolated communities a double whammy of problems and costs.

Does increasing energy-efficiency regulation add lots to the cost of the product? We have seen in the automotive industry that the opposite has happened. As time has passed, the real cost of vehicles has gone down despite energy efficiency going up quite markedly. I see no reason why that should not be the case for residential homes in the building industry, as has been shown in the rest of Europe. I very much hope that the Government will look at that consultation carefully, and we will look at it further in Committee.

On invasive and non-native species, biodefence and security—as I suppose one would call it—is clearly important for this country. We have seen this with everything from ash dieback disease to foot and mouth and the whole issue of Japanese knotweed, of which there is lots around where I live. This is a key area, and I very much welcome these extra steps to make sure that we keep our biodiversity secure. That is absolutely fundamental to our nation’s future security, and we will obviously be looking at it in detail in Committee.

16:27

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner. This is an interesting Bill and it must have been an interesting conversation deciding what to call it, considering the wide variations in its parts. However, the kernel of the Bill is that the continuous modernisation of our national infrastructure is important to our economy and social well-being. It is an unfortunate fact of modern life in the UK that we are overreliant on our ageing roads system and, unless we continue to invest in it, our economy and lifestyle will suffer badly, and in my view is already doing so. In England in particular, we are a very overcrowded nation and without good roads much of our lives can be wasted sitting in jams.

The privatisation of the Highways Agency may result in improved efficiency and better long-term planning, but there is no doubt in my mind that the important bit of Part 1 is the road investment strategy. Without properly planned and increased investment, the rest of Part 1 is a mere shuffling of deck-chairs. We need a constant supply of regular money over many years with the degree of certainty that will encourage constant investment by others: hauliers and other logistic businesses; manufacturers that depend on our roads for the delivery of their goods from regions that desperately need that manufacturing investment; and our tourist industry, which needs the certainty of an easy flow of visitors.

One region which is dear to me, and which desperately needs both manufacturers and tourists but lacks the necessary road links, is the south-west of England. The A303 has for years been stymied by the blockage of Stonehenge, where English Heritage, the National Trust, the Department for Transport and others have been arguing for nearly 30 years as to who has the right to do what and to whom. Meanwhile, the prevailing sentiment seems to have been that it is not worth investing further west until that problem has been solved. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. If you are trying to deal with a blocked drain, which is not a bad metaphor for the A303, then you want to start at the bottom end so that work can be done without being swamped by sewage—or excess traffic in the case of a road. As far as I am aware, all the plans for a continuous dualling of the A303 have already been developed, and now we just need the investment to get on with it. Therefore I hope that the road investment strategy will point us in the right direction in the immediate future. However, of course the Bill makes no commitment as to the availability of funds for the improvement of our road infrastructure.

On Part 2, which deals with the control of invasive non-native species, noble Lords would expect me as a farmer and landowner to be firmly supportive, and I am. For many years I have wished that the UK could take as strong a line on these matters as do the Governments of, say, Australia and New Zealand. Admittedly, their economy is perhaps more dependent on what they grow than ours is. However, they spend a lot of manpower and resources protecting their borders against invasive alien species, and dish out very severe punishments on those who ignore the rules, of course having spent a lot of money in the first place on ensuring that everyone knows them. It would be good to see a few more officious-looking posters at our ports and airports, not to mention sniffer dogs.

Unlike us, Australia and New Zealand also possess what might be described as better natural quarantine borders, but I am pleased to note that the whole issue of invasive alien species has recently had considerable EU interest. It has been calculated that invasive alien species currently cost the EU around €12 billion per annum. The figure for the UK, which the Minister already mentioned, is around £1.7 billion per annum. I therefore urge the Government to continue to work with the prevailing enthusiasm in the EU because undoubtedly, without the co-operation of our neighbours, we cannot hope to win that particular war on our own. There are already some 282 invasive alien species in the UK which we are struggling to control. As we are a seafaring nation, it is important to note that marine ballast water contains some of the greatest dangers to us, and alien marine species such as Japanese wireweed could pose an even greater threat than, say, the land-based Japanese knotweed mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Therefore, my main question to the Government on Part 2 is the same as for Part 1: where will the extra money come from to promote and enforce this new campaign?

In Part 3, the bit that worries me the most is Clause 20. I would love to be told that I am worrying unnecessarily, but rumours abound that the Government intend to discourage the practice of local councils insisting on a percentage of any development being built as affordable housing. When I say “any development”, I refer in particular to the very small developments of the kind you find in rural villages. It is there that affordable housing is most needed to enable local families to stick together and support each other, and where social services find it so difficult to reach. It is there that local families, who have probably been part of the village for generations, find that the ever rising value of freehold houses, combined with new money from the cities, removes their supply of rented accommodation while putting the freehold accommodation way beyond their means. It is there that affordable housing is socially at its most important, and must under no circumstances be lost in the future mix of rural development. I therefore hope that the Government can alleviate my worries concerning the hidden implications of that clause or of the Bill.

In Part 4, the concept of local community involvement in renewable projects is a good idea. I hope that it will discourage knee-jerk local opposition to renewable schemes and encourage communities to be part of the solution to the problems of our energy industry and its huge effect on climate change. It is right to limit the investment to 5%. If locals were allowed to compulsorily purchase a much higher percentage, I can foresee opposition groups using the scheme as a Trojan horse for undermining the projects rather than for supporting or benefiting from them.

However, bearing in mind that many of these renewable projects take place in remote and semi-remote parts of the country, not a great deal of local money is available for investments of this sort—as I have already explained when referring to rural housing issues. Therefore I am not sure that this part is going to be much more than just an idea, unless the Government set up some sort of funding arrangements to assist local groups to achieve the investment they seek. Renewable schemes are by their very nature highly capital-intensive and a £5 million project would not be a very big scheme. However, the quarter-of-a-million-pound investment, which represents 5% of that, would be way beyond the means of most rural communities, which struggle to find even £5,000 to repair their village hall or church. Maybe the Government could help to get the message across to the banks that community loans for these purposes should be relatively risk free and do not necessarily need outside collateral. Maybe the Government could underwrite a percentage of the loan involved.

In Part 5, the great unstated provision, we are led to believe, is that of changing the law of trespass to allow for fracking. On the whole, I would go along with the rumoured proposals. I cannot believe that I, as a landowner, should have rights over my land down to the centre of the earth, where presumably I would meet the rights of some Australian landowner coming the other way. There must be a limit to the depth of my ownership and some 500 metres below sea level would seem amply fair to me.

However, as a supporter of fracking, I just say that surely one of the objectives must be to get the locals on side. Taking Part 4 as a model, would it not be a good idea to offer a 5% share issue in a fracking project to a local community? What is good for the goose might also be good for the gander.

Generally, I welcome the Bill and look forward to discussions on the wide-ranging various bits of it in Committee.

16:35

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Infrastructure Bill and its joined-up thinking. A number of noble Lords have looked across the whole Bill and the large scale of it, but I shall look at only a specific area—that of community energy—and ask the Minister about how the Government can deliver on that.

The aim is to help communities play a key role in reducing carbon emissions and increasing energy security. The principle is that of partnership, to increase the reach and scale of community energy. The method is ownership or purchasing a stake in commercially developed projects. My question is: how realistic is that kind of strategy? “Community” is a slippery word and is largely in disarray at the moment. It is not as though there are communities out there organised and ready to make a financial investment. “Community” still remains the domain of the amateur, the interested person—hardly good material for commercial investment. I suggest that we probably need an incremental approach if we are to get widespread support for this vital policy on energy and get communities organised to participate appropriately. I think the appeal immediately for financial arrangements is probably premature, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, just hinted.

I want to share with noble Lords a little case study to show how we need to build a base of popular support and participation around the energy issue so that people understand it, engage with it and can be drawn into making possibly financial and other investments. I want to tell a little story about a parish, in the diocese of Derby where I am privileged to work, called Melbourne. Melbourne parish church is a grade 1 listed building of Norman foundation. One could not have a more precious building as an icon in the community. After a long and tortuous path, the parish has just got permission for a solar microgeneration system—that is, panels on the roof to most of us. Noble Lords can imagine the debate this has caused locally and the consciousness raising about “Why do that to a Norman building?”. The point is that, now the parish church is part of the Melbourne area transition scheme, people have got interested. They all started saying that this was not relevant or useful; they now see the point, they support the church taking a lead and they are willing to invest and support the church. They are beginning to engage in the energy agenda across the whole community. Unless we do that careful, encouraging work of participation and consciousness raising, we will find it very hard to get the community investment that the Bill looks to.

That applies not just in a lovely market town such as Melbourne. I could take noble Lords to St Barnabas in inner Derby or the church of St John’s in Mickleover, which is in the suburbs, or the Peak District village of Old Brampton. In all those places, similar projects are being pursued. That is because a church and other iconic places do not just represent people’s hopes and fears in their hearts, souls and spirits, but represent an opportunity to engage creatively with the world in which we live and our care for the planet.

I invite the Minister to consider in her reply whether we need to think of some intermediate strategy before we come to this appeal for the community to invest—as I think communities should be encouraged to do—and whether we need to encourage churches and other iconic places to step into the debate and facilitate an engagement with the issues, with what problems might arise and with what the benefits might be. We need to get people in their own backyards to understand, participate in and support this kind of culture change, without which our whole aspiration to deal with climate change issues will fall very far short. I invite the Minister to comment on the need for an incremental strategy using iconic places and processes to effect a culture change that might give some energy to the strategy proposed in the Bill.

16:40

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, in response to the right reverend Prelate, I intend to say a few words about the community energy scheme towards the end of my speech. There is a great deal of evidence already of communities investing in a variety of different ways. This is not something wholly new; it is a question of what the Bill intends to build on—and I shall have something to say about that.

I very much welcomed the initial remark of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who said that he was going to support the Bill. It is just as well that he said that, because the rest of his speech made it perfectly clear that he was totally disgusted with the entire Bill—that it did not do what it said it did, that it was a blank sheet and that it did not have any guarantees, or anything. I refer to three of the points that the noble Lord made. He talked about the need for generating capacity and asked where it was. Is he not aware that the European Union is currently considering an application for state aid approval for the Hinkley Point nuclear power station? Until that is forthcoming—and everyone is very confident that it will be—I think that EDF has done a huge amount already, but of course it cannot take its final investment decision. I think that he might have made some reference to that.

The noble Lord talked about the strategic highways companies and asked where their accountability was. Does he not remember that his own Government set up a national strategic planning authority, which was going to be the final arbiter of major strategic planning decisions? It was this Government who had to change that to make the Secretary of State finally accountable, because then the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. Of course, the Secretary of State will be, as the sole shareholder in the companies, wholly accountable to Parliament for what these companies do.

Finally, on the question of shale gas, he said that there was a totally blank sheet. He has obviously not read the consultation paper published last May, which sets out a great many details of exactly what the Government want to do, provided that the consultation shows that there is sufficient approval for it. So I was rather disappointed by the noble Lord’s speech. I hope that I am not disclosing secrets, but when we discussed this matter some years ago he told me that the duty of an Opposition was to oppose. I said, “Well, you can’t oppose the high speed rail—you started it all”. Well, we will wait and see.

On the fracking clauses, I was not alone in believing that we would see those clauses in this Bill. Noble Lords will remember that I mentioned this in my speech on the second day of the Queen’s Speech debate. In a somewhat jocular account of the Government’s legislative programme, the House Magazine said that this was going to be called the “drill, baby, drill” Bill. Well, it will be. I am grateful to my noble friend for the letter that she sent me yesterday which said that the House will have an opportunity to consider those clauses once the consultation was complete and the Government could be sure that they would have sufficient support for them. That is one way of doing it. We want to get ahead with this—that is why the Bill has been introduced—and it is perfectly possible, with the notice that has been given, to have the clauses dealt with as they were.

I turn to what is in the Bill before us. I have already made one point on the question of the highways companies. My instinctive reaction is to support these clauses. I am sure that executive companies which are free from direct daily interference by Ministers and departments can operate more efficiently and effectively than if they remain agencies of the department. I am not an expert on roads and I will listen to the arguments with interest.

I have had some experience of the planning system. While I have sympathy with some of the points that have been made to us by the Local Government Association, I was very surprised to read its statement:

“The planning system is not a barrier to economic growth”.

You could have fooled me. That is certainly not the view we have heard consistently from the business community, which has to try to work with the present system. Of course, it recognises that there have been substantial improvements in recent years but it is looking for more to be done to ease the way.

Indeed, some of the blame for this situation rests with the local authorities themselves. I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. For years local authorities have had the power to draw up local plans but few of them have so far succeeded in doing that. That is one of the barriers which the system faces and I look forward to hearing more about it in the debates to come.

I wish to make three specific points on Part 3. I have given notice to my noble friend on the Front Bench of my question relating to the Homes and Communities Agency and what should happen in London. The powers of that agency in London already belong to the Greater London Authority. It seems to me quite unnecessary that properties in London should be subject to the same provisions in the Bill as apply to the rest of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, sends her apologies for not being able to be with us today and asked me to raise this point. Of course, both the mayor and London First warmly welcome the Government’s determination to reduce the hassle and bureaucracy of the present system for getting dormant publicly owned land transferred to firms for development. This is particularly true of housing. In London there is a great need for more brownfield sites on which to build homes. However, Clause 21 gives this power to the Homes and Communities Agency. That seems to me quite wrong. Why can the mayor not be given an overarching remit to assess, in conjunction with all parts of the public sector in London, what public landholdings are surplus above a certain threshold, and be given the firm and clear responsibility for bringing them forward for development? After all, he is the elected body and it seems to me that he should be able to do that. I have no doubt that amendments will be tabled on that issue.

My second point concerns Clause 22 and easements and other constraints. At present the law provides that the disposer of land has to retain an interest in it. I cannot believe that that is what is intended here. If public land is to be sold for development, why should the seller retain an interest in it? I hope that my noble friend will give me an assurance on that point.

The expansion of the Land Registry to take in local functions relating to land needs to be examined closely. I listened to the arguments made by my noble friend, who came close to convincing me that this is the most appropriate course. I have read quite a lot about it. I was interested that the Government’s response to the consultation acknowledged that,

“many of the responses were not supportive of the proposals”.

However, I have been told that the responses to the proposals were almost wholly negative and included opposition from the Local Government Association, other local authorities, the Law Society, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Information Commissioner, the personal search industry and other stakeholders. I can well understand that the national Land Registry wants to increase its powers and services, but more will need to be done if one is going to convince all those important groups that this is, in fact, the important thing to do. I am certainly open to persuasion but the Government need to do more. I suspect that we shall have some arguments in Committee.

Before I sit down, I should like to follow the right reverend Prelate and say a few words about Part 4, which, with Schedule 5, provides for a community electricity right—a power to require by law developers to offer a stake in onshore renewable electricity projects for sale to local communities. I can certainly understand—indeed, it would be welcome—if local communities can share in the benefits of such development; that can and does reduce opposition. That seems to be an important measure. It would give people, as the right reverend Prelate said, a feeling of involvement and participation, and that is right. The evidence shows that, in fact, a great deal of this is already going on across the country—voluntary measures are being taken in a variety of ways and are not constrained by any of the details that would have to be put into a statutory power. I have re-read the summary of DECC’s report, Community Energy Strategy, which referred to a community energy task force. It was planned to report to the Secretary of State by the summer of this year—here we are, half way through June, and we have not yet had the report—and for there to be a “review” next year. Yet, here we are, legislating for a proposal to establish a statutory power to compel developers to sell a stake in their developments. On this I should like to make two points.

First, virtually all the details under this proposal and schedule will have to be set out in secondary legislation. We are familiar with dealing with that in energy legislation, given that we had it in spades in relation to the Energy Bill, but a huge amount of these proposals will need to be dealt with in regulations. I hope that the Government can today give us an assurance that we will not debate this part of the Bill until we at least have a clearer indication of what is going to be in the regulations, perhaps in draft form or something of that sort.

My second and, I promise, final point is: why do we need to make this compulsory? It is happening already on a wide scale across the country. The Renewable Energy Association has told me that a statutory power, even as a back-stop, is not going to make the task of its members any easier in securing voluntary agreements. I therefore ask my noble friend: why cannot this process simply be allowed to continue? The answer will be that some developers may resist and, therefore, the power will be there as a back-stop. There needs to be a power, as the Government say, just in case it may be needed. Ministers may say—as they do—that they do not want to have to use this power, and that they would much rather that the process continues to be voluntary. I have sufficient experience of this, however, and if departments are given a power to do something, sooner or later they do it. My mantra for that phenomenon goes back many years. If a department can do something then sooner or later it will. If Ministers want to continue with the voluntary arrangements, which the industry certainly wants—it does not want a statutory arrangement—why can we not just leave it at that? This is something that needs to be looked at very carefully in Committee.

Like others I support the Bill, but I have questions that will need to be answered.

16:55

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, one might ask why we need another piece of legislation, given that we had an infrastructure and planning Bill only a couple of years ago and a national infrastructure plan only last year. The Bill reads as though it consists of things that were left out of those previous government initiatives, or were thought of or seen as problems since. It is a bit of a hotchpotch of a Bill. Luckily for me, I am interested in quite a lot of the hotches and potches, even though they are disparate. That might not be good news for the Minister. I am also interested in some rather more primary questions, such as what counts as infrastructure. For example, housing sometimes counts as infrastructure, but it is not included in the infrastructure plan. More esoterically, improving energy efficiency in buildings, which is a major challenge and would give huge returns on our energy policy, does not count as infrastructure and is therefore not judged on the same basis as major infrastructure projects.

It is also not clear how one infrastructure project is judged against another. I am familiar with roads and flood defence. With roads you can occasionally get—at least in the tail-end of the programme—a net present value cost-benefit ratio of 2:1. For flood defence you are lucky to get a project that returns 7:1, or indeed 13:1. There is no consistency in our approach to infrastructure. There is then, of course, the issue of who pays. By and large, these days it is the consumer, whether in energy prices, road tax or water charges. That method of financing infrastructure is regressive. It tends to be the poorest who make the biggest contribution to and, quite often, the least use of that infrastructure.

I will talk mainly about Part 1. Those of you who have been in this House for some time might recall that for three or four years I was the Roads Minister, which was an interesting job—I am sure the Minister is finding it so. I find the proposals on the Highways Agency interesting and I am not opposed to them. However, I do not believe some of the alleged benefits that are set out in the advocacy of them. It could be constituted as a government-owned company, although I hope we find a better name for it than “GoCo”. I do not object in principle; I would object were this to be a step towards privatisation, but from government statements and the Minister shaking her head earlier today, that is clearly not the objective.

The proposed model has some potential advantages. A company would be freer to enter new forms of contract for road building, road operation, maintenance and so on. In the present climate, it would probably be able to offer salaries for expertise and management that it cannot as part of the Civil Service. It could also probably finance or make use of innovative approaches rather more than an agency closer to the department could. I support such a model, at least tepidly, for those reasons, although, as others have pointed out, there are down sides in a new organisation requiring all the overheads that a relatively lean organisation, as the Highways Agency currently is, does not. I would be in favour of such an entity—“GoCo”, “Highways Agency Plus” or whatever we call it—if the Government were to make more of the need for it to have new methods of managing our motorway system. There are advances in road design, telemetry and traffic control that our system does not make full use of and that an innovative organisation could make more of for benefits of safety, speed control and traffic management, and to improve journey times. Of course—be it whispered—it could also provide the basis for the introduction of variable road-user charging. I do not think that in the long run we will be able to pay for a modern, competitive national road network unless some form of road charging is introduced. However, that is politically toxic and at this stage before a general election nobody on the Front Bench of any party is going to advocate it, but I think that we will return to it.

It is arguable that an arm’s-length company would be better able to carry out that kind of strategic objective. However, what it will not of itself do is deliver the Government’s main point in their documentation—a stable, clearly viable, long-term strategic programme for road building and road maintenance.

Being a Roads Minister is a lightning conductor for everybody who wants their bypass improved, a new junction or the introduction of safety measures and so forth, and that is not going to change. No Secretary of State and no Minister for Roads will avoid all that, however arm’s length we ostensibly push the organisation that is going to deliver it. However, more important than giving Ministers a quiet life is the fact that the change of status does not of itself in any way give certainty of long-term financing.

Going back to the creation of the Highways Agency in 1994 under the previous Conservative Government, pretty much the same benefits were claimed. That Government developed a roads programme and the previous Labour Government developed several roads programmes. However, there were changes in those programmes. One of the A303 routes, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to and which I sometimes frustratingly drive past on my way home, was mentioned in 1994 at the time of the creation of the Highways Agency. It was in the last roads programme of the previous Tory Government. It was also in the programme that I announced and it was still in the programme when I left the job. It has subsequently gone. I cannot pinpoint the exact Minister at the moment but this Government certainly did not restart it and not a sod has been turned.

Projects such as that run into all sorts of difficulties. There are changes in local circumstances, different sorts of objections, planning difficulties that are unforeseen and technical difficulties. There were technical difficulties with the A303 tunnelling process. However, at the end of the day the reality is, for one reason or another, that Ministers change their mind, and the main reason they do so is that the Treasury tells them that they cannot have the money.

It is not at all clear how this new structure will alter that situation one iota. Because the Highways Agency is a government-owned company rather than an agency, the Secretary of State will have to argue the toss with the Treasury. It is not clear from the proposition whether this new company will be allowed to raise its own money by going to the market for bonds. I should like a clearer answer on that. There is a reference in Clause 12 to the Secretary of State being able to guarantee various issues, but whether that means guaranteeing—in effect, underwriting—the company going to the market for loan capital is not clear. I should have thought that if that was the Government’s intention, they would have made rather a bigger thing of it. The reality is that the roads programme will never be sufficiently secure, sufficiently long-term or sufficiently constant if it is down to the Secretary of State and the Treasury to sort it out. If some money could be raised as loan capital—I stress “loan capital”—it would be possible to smooth it out a bit, but not otherwise. I do not believe that the Bill gives the power to the company to do that—at least, not on any significant basis.

Therefore, I think there is a danger of there being a false promise to the motoring organisations, the motoring correspondents and Jeremy Clarkson that at last we will have a proper roads programme in this country. I do not think the Bill guarantees that at all. While there may be some advantages in other respects, changing the name on the door does not deliver it. Another issue in relation to the position of the Highways Agency is that the original proposition talked about a single company but this allows for more than one company. I do not understand that. Why would we want more than one company to manage our motorway system? Or are we going to distinguish between the motorways and the trunk roads that the Highways Agency owns? Is it going to be a regional thing, in which case the interface between the new body and local authorities will be quite difficult, or are we going to reclassify and de-trunk or re-trunk roads to create separate companies? I do not see the benefit of even postulating that there is a possibility of having several companies operating in this field.

My noble friend referred to the oversight and engagement bodies. It is not immediately obvious that Passenger Focus is the most appropriate organisation to deal with roads. I am a great admirer of Passenger Focus and I have defended it in this House against the possibility of abolition and against the cuts that unfortunately have been made to its budget. However, it has dealt with fare-paying passengers, not with motorists or hauliers, which are a different proposition. On balance, Passenger Focus probably could take that on but it would not be easy and it would require significant funding to recruit the people capable of doing it.

It is even more bizarre to give the responsibility for monitoring to the Office of Rail Regulation. It has an entirely different franchise system from the road system. It is not just a question of monitoring. If a company is genuinely at arm’s length, it will require heavier regulation than that. There should be a separate regulator. The responsibility should not be added to the already rather difficult task of the Office of Rail Regulation.

While I do not oppose the concept, there are a lot of issues relating to the Highways Agency. I have views on other parts of the Bill, which I shall leave until Committee, although I have copious notes here. As regards the Highways Agency, there is a germ of a good idea but a lot of questions need asking and answering. I hope that we will be clearer by the end of the Bill’s progress through this House.

17:07

[Lord Oxburgh (CB)]

My Lords, it is a tough job to follow a speaker as well informed and experienced as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Fortunately, I will take a slightly different line. As has been pointed out, the Bill covers a number of interesting and somewhat loosely related topics. The first part deals with roads and establishing a strategic highways company, or companies—I share the puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, over the reference to companies—to implement the roads programme. I have some specific questions on this which I will come to later.

For the moment, I wish to raise how the roads programme was established in the first place and how it will fit into considerations of the broader national infrastructure. Perhaps this will be revealed in the strategic vision promised by the Minister. She also spoke of the very substantial investment being made in infrastructure, which is to be welcomed. Undoubtedly, things have got better. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out, the evidence suggests that we may not yet be getting these things right. The recent World Economic Forum report on global competitiveness ranked the overall quality of UK infrastructure rather low in the world league, which echoed the conclusion of the CBI report in 2011. I think we can agree that that has to change if the economic recovery, which fortunately is under way at present, is to continue and to be consolidated.

Good infrastructure is what attracts investment and underpins virtually all economic activity. One does not have to go very far in other European countries to be impressed by the seamless integration of air, road and rail services in a way that all too often seems to elude us.

Why should we have a problem? There is a national infrastructure unit within the Treasury, advised by a National Infrastructure Advisory Council that includes external members. A policy paper was published entitled National Infrastructure Plan 2013 that was updated on the website on 31 March 2014. The trouble is that it is not an infrastructure plan: is a list. It enumerates the major road projects that are to go ahead, along with dozens of other local infrastructure projects of many kinds in different parts of the country. We find sections on roads, rail, airports, energy and a host of other important investments. However, each section appears to have been written in isolation by different authors and to a large extent ignores other infrastructural elements.

What we do not find in the plan is any integrated view of national infrastructure as a whole, or indeed any recognition that the different elements of infrastructure should interact with each other. This approach has dogged our recent discussions of major infrastructure projects. In the ongoing discussion of HS2 there has been little mention of how the motorway network might be affected one way or the other if it were built or not built—or, for that matter, whether the HS2 line offers the possibility of a new route for high-speed broadband fibre. These things can go together. Similarly, the discussion of new airport capacity in the south-east has been driven largely by local considerations with the assumption that whatever road or rail connection were needed would simply have to be built.

The national infrastructure plan contains virtually no discussion of policy. For example, in the roads section, I was unable to find any indication at all that any of the projects had taken into account the fact that over the next 30 to 40 years of their lifetime they would certainly have to withstand more extremes of climate than have been usual in the past. Indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is not represented on the National Infrastructure Advisory Committee. In the particular context of road development, for example, there is no discussion of whether it is desirable to have an infrastructure that promotes the movement of more freight by rail. These are important strategic considerations that seem to be completely omitted from our thinking.

The national infrastructure plan is seriously misnamed. It is not a plan, as I pointed out. The enumeration of infrastructure projects planned or in progress in the country as a whole gives no clue as to why the priorities have been decided on or how they might fit together. They give the appearance of priority lists generated by a series of unco-ordinated departmental silos.

At this point, I draw the attention of the House to the work of the London School of Economics Growth Commission on which two of our colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Stern, serve. Although the Growth Commission’s remit is wider than infrastructure, it emphasises that proper infrastructure planning is essential for the economy to prosper. Among other recommendations, the commission proposes the establishment of an overarching infrastructure strategy board that will view national infrastructure as a whole.

Infrastructure projects are essentially long-term in both their execution and operation, and need to survive many Parliaments and many Ministers. For that reason, the commission argues that infrastructure planning needs to be removed as far as possible from adversarial party politics and carried forward on the basis of political consensus—and the commission makes suggestions as to how that can be done.

To turn to the specifics of the Bill, the proposed replacement of the Highways Agency with a company or companies wholly owned by government is a central plank. The proposed arrangement offers the possibility of more independence in the day-to-day running of matters relating to national roads and should allow a greater degree of certainty in planning. The expectation is that this will make the funding of road projects easier.

So far, so good, but what does this imply for the planning of road projects? Where will the responsibility lie for deciding how the national road network will evolve and how this will relate to other aspects of infrastructure? How will priorities be decided? The Bill is quite explicit that although the putative company—or companies—may subcontract the implementation of certain aspects of the work, responsibility for those aspects will remain with the company. Does this carry over to the relationship between Ministers and the company? Does the Minister retain full responsibility for the actions of the company or can the company develop and maintain the road network in a way that takes no account of other national priorities? It would be extremely useful to hear the Minister’s views on these questions.

I had not expected or planned to speak on Part 4, but, given that it has been subject to discussion, I will say that the sad thing is that Part 4 is necessary. Until, I think, about three years ago, I was chairman of a very successful onshore wind company, which operated both in mainland Europe and in the UK. Certainly in the UK, before embarking on any project in an area where we had identified a good wind resource, the first thing we did was to go into the local community and, through a variety of local organisations, say, “Look, we think you have a great wind resource here. Would you be interested in developing it in collaboration with us?”. The response was almost invariably positive, which was certainly a matter of expediency to the extent that it enormously facilitated the passage of the proposal through the planning process.

The last project was perhaps the most interesting, when we built a wind farm on the northernmost tip of the island of Skye, well away from the areas that are visited by tourists. We found, to our astonishment, that the local take-up of shares in the company was really significant. I cannot remember, but I think that members of the local community ended up owning three of the windmills themselves. The opening of the park was celebrated by a great ceilidh and the local distillery produced a windmill malt with one of our turbines illustrated on the label. The message is simply to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said: that this has been going on for some time and sensible companies should have been doing it. Those that have not would learn a great deal from looking at these lessons. Whether this is a necessary provision, I just do not know.

In conclusion, I shall not address other aspects of the Bill, which introduces a number of measures that I think will be useful, particularly those concerned with invasive species. However, I emphasise again that there are important questions about our overall, global, infrastructure planning in this country. I would like the Minister to tell us whether there is any process by which the component elements of infrastructure are considered together and prioritised in the national interest. My inquiries suggest that this does not happen at the meetings of the Treasury’s Infrastructure Advisory Council. Could it be that our infrastructure plan is not a plan at all but simply the outcome of an interdepartmental free-for-all, to a greater or lesser extent refereed by the Treasury with the sole priority of keeping down spending? If that is the case, our low position in the world infrastructure rankings is easily understood.

I support the Bill because its provisions seem to be generally beneficial but my concern is that we may not be getting value for money from our infrastructure investment because of a lack of articulation between its components.

17:19

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome many parts of the Bill, although it does rather seem as if it is sweeping up loose ends before the election. I thought that the Minister did pretty well in her introduction to cover things such as the changes to the Highways Agency; low-carbon homes; shale gas—oil is now low-carbon as well, apparently; planning; non-native species; and the Land Registry. But it is a bit of a curate’s egg. I shall concentrate mainly on Part 1. My noble friend Lord Whitty, from his great experience as a Minister, has outlined some things that I might also have views on, as did the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.

Starting with the Highways Agency, I think that there is benefit in moving towards the kind of structure that Network Rail will have after it comes under government ownership on 1 September. Again, it looks rather like putting two things side by side with no read-across between the different types of transport and the need to encourage some modes of transport at the expense of others. As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, said, there is perhaps a silo mentality.

With regard to the new highways companies, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, how many companies are we going to have? I suspect that this is the start of seeing whether they could actually be privatised—but not in Wales, which seems to be exempt. It will not happen in this legislation but it might happen in the future. The problem, as other noble Lords have said, is where the revenue is going to come from.

My next question concerns the application of the Freedom of Information Act. It seems to me that the company or companies should be subject to FoI, which the Bill requires Passenger Focus to be subject to. It is a bit odd to have Passenger Focus subject to FoI if the companies themselves are not. I have been saying over many years that Network Rail should be subject to FoI as well. We need a bit of consistency here.

It is difficult to talk about governance because we do not know much about it. I believe that the Minister promised us a document before Second Reading but I do not think it has come. It may be that we will get answers to many of the questions that I and other noble Lords will be asking, but we need it as soon as possible and I hope that she can tell us when we can expect it.

I would like the Minister to comment on whether, in the preparation of the road investment strategy, the Government will take account of the Climate Change Act, the national parks Act and various other Acts, such as right-of-way and environmental legislation. If they do, there needs to be some read-across to Network Rail’s process. Will they undertake the same type of consultation on routes as that which underpins the rail investment strategy? It should underpin the road one because one should look at routes in a multidisciplinary way, with road and rail being compared on particular routes. Will that happen?

Other noble Lords have talked about the funding for the new companies. Will it be similar to the HLOS under which Network Rail operates? I wonder how the Minister has come up with a saving of £2.6 billion in 10 years. How will that be checked and monitored? We have the monitor, which I shall come on to later, monitoring various aspects of the companies’ work.

In the case of Network Rail, the Office of Rail Regulation required it to make savings of about 40% of its turnover over a 10-year period, which is a massive saving, and I think it has done very well to achieve it. Will the monitor therefore be required to do the same for the Highways Agency? It would seem reasonable if it did, but that assumes that there will be a five-year funding programme rather than the annual one which my noble friend Lord Whitty suggested will probably happen. I believe that that has happened to the Environment Agency. Most of my party think that the Environment Agency’s revenue has been drastically cut, and I agree. The Government say that it has been increased, but the problem is that it has been changed—I think, for the worse—so we will need some comfort on that as well.

Going on to cross-modal issues and the duties of the strategic highways authority, will a duty be put on it to work with Network Rail and other relevant bodies? We must not forget local and regional transport bodies, as other noble Lords have said. The amount of traffic on the main Highways Agency roads is actually not a high proportion of the total.

Then there is the question of forecasting, which we have raised many times; the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has also raised it. Will we get some consistency of forecasting of traffic between road and rail? Will we have one forecast or a range? Will the regulator, or whatever it is to be called, be expected to assess the modes together along corridors? How will the highways side of it take into account the needs of buses, cycling and walking? The Minister may say, “You don’t walk along trunk roads”. If you do, you need a footpath or a cycle way. Trunk roads are, after all, a means of travelling between different areas, and there is absolutely no reason why there should not be cycle tracks and footpaths along them. There probably should be some beside HS2, if it gets built. Those other modes of transport need to be included in any policy work that the authority and the department undertake. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Turning to the Passengers’ Council, I find it extraordinary to have a Passengers’ Council looking after roads and their customers. The AA and the RAC do not do a bad job of looking after the customers of roads driving cars or motor bikes, and the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association do a pretty good job of looking after the interests of their members. They are not funded by the Government. When it comes to railways, the Rail Passengers’ Council is funded by the Government, but who looks after the interests of rail freight? The answer is the Rail Freight Group, in which I declare an interest as chairman, and the Freight Transport Association. I cannot believe that the Government intend to offer us £10 million of subsidy to make us equal to the roads. It seems extraordinary that they think that the passengers who drive up and down the roads need a subsidised organisation to look after their interests, but perhaps I am missing something there. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that.

My noble friend Lord Whitty rightly mentioned the Office of Rail Regulation looking after roads. First, it needs a new name. Secondly, who will fund it? For the railways, it is funded 50% by Network Rail and 50% by the customers, the passenger and freight operators. Presumably, the companies running the strategic road network will fund half of it for roads and the road users will be asked to fund the rest. Is that a rogue user charge, or how will they do it? Or is it yet another subsidy for the roads? I do not know. For railways, the Railways Acts put specific duties on the ORR to guide its works. Would it not be useful if there were specific duties on the monitor, or whatever we want to call it, so as to have its duties specified in this legislation?

The next matter is something that I feel quite strongly about. It is not here in the Bill, but it should be. It is to do with level-crossing legislation. Your Lordships may be thinking, “Why is he talking about that now? It is a minor detail”. However, there are 7,000 level crossings in this country, each with its own legislation. As noble Lords will know, Network Rail has recently been quite severely criticised by the Commons Transport Committee and the Lord Chief Justice over various things that have gone wrong. The legislation is incredibly complex and difficult. I am told that you cannot even change a light bulb in a level-crossing light without putting in a special application to the Office of Rail Regulation for each level crossing, because if you do not, Network Rail might be liable. I am also told that there are 8,000 pieces of legislation, so it could be said that this is a really big red tape challenge for the Government.

The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have spent five years considering this and have proposed a Bill to replace all this past legislation with a simple framework within the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which would apply to all stakeholders equally. The Law Commission published a draft Bill which is about 50 pages long, and it is a very good Bill. I gave the Minister notice that I was thinking of putting down the whole of that Bill as an amendment, but then I thought better of it. I am sure that she is grateful to me. However, it is something that we ought to talk about. I am very grateful to her for arranging a meeting so that we can all go through it. I think that that will happen next week. It is a wonderful opportunity to simplify things, save an awful lot of money and time and get the responsibility for the different parts of level crossings where it belongs.

I have one final example on this. Network Rail is responsible for everything, which is right up to a point. However, if a local authority and a bus company decide to put a bus stop 20 yards beyond a level crossing, and if the buses all stop there and traffic backs up on the crossing causing an accident, there is absolutely nothing that Network Rail can do about it except to stop the trains. Something needs to be done, and I am looking forward to further discussion about it.

Finally, I have two quick comments. First, on the non-native species in Part 2, can the Minister confirm, to an ignoramus like me, what a species is? Does it include things that fly or those that go on the land? Does it include things that swim or are in the water? She will probably understand why I am asking those questions. It is very important that the legislation cover all those things, so I hope that she can confirm that it will. Secondly, Part 4 is better late than never. I remember that, more than 10 years ago, when I was on the European Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, we visited Denmark to see wind farms on land which had been developed with the support of local communities, which then got cheaper electricity. In our report we asked why that did not happen here. Okay, it has taken 10 or 15 years, but I am very pleased to see that it is happening. I welcome much of the Bill and am looking forward to some good discussions in Committee.

17:33

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the extremely good work of the Law Commission. It sounds to me as though there is a very valuable piece of legislation that we could pick up to clear away some of the wreckage of prior years.

For my part, I find myself in sympathy with the strategic objectives behind this legislation although, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding rightly reminded us, much of the detail has yet to be revealed and it will be important that the regulations are published in time for us to have a proper discussion about the detail of the operations of the proposals before us today. My noble friend on the Front Bench gave a persuasive defence of the idea of a strategic authority for our road and motorway network.

Like my noble friend Lord Teverson, I too have struggled with Japanese knotweed, so I understand the importance of dealing with non-native invasive species. Indeed only last week, standing by a trout stream in Wiltshire that I enjoy patronising at this time of year, I was disturbed to find some mink and to see that the water contained an increasing number of very large Canadian crayfish, which are driving out our native-born crayfish and destroying them, so this seems to be an important and useful part of the Bill. And who can argue with the need to house our population decently?

With that background, I shall raise three points with the Government today. The first concerns not how much housing we are going to build or where we are going to build it; rather, the question is what we are going to build. We in this country have an extraordinarily rich and diverse heritage of local architecture, from the dark stone of Yorkshire and the honey-coloured stone of the Cotswolds and Oxford, to the whitewashed cottages of the Celtic fringe and the half-timbered black and white houses of my home county of Shropshire and of Herefordshire. Noble Lords will have their own particular examples of this. I fear that these regional variations are now being swept away in favour of huge estates constructed entirely from six or seven off-plan models of individual houses. If I were to blindfold individual Members of your Lordships’ House, load them into a helicopter, land them in a housing estate and then remove their blindfolds, they would not be able to tell whether they were in Norwich, Redditch, Plymouth or Stockton-on-Tees. I argue that housing constructed in sympathy with the locality, composed of the local style and using local materials increases people’s pride in their community and a sense of belonging and so improves social cohesion.

As I say this, I can feel the officials in the Box preparing a note to send to my noble friend on the Front Bench saying, “Tell the noble Lord there are plenty of other provisions, including one in the Localism Act, which will give local communities the power to insist on specific standards”. However, I am afraid that this has proved to be on the one hand specious and on the other hand ineffective. Faced with a developer that tells the local authority that it can have a standard-plan house at X thousand pounds but a specified one costs X thousand plus 20%, there can be only one answer. The builders will fight tooth and nail to narrow as much as possible the range of houses that they have to offer; it is, after all, in their commercial interests so to do. The Government need to think carefully whether there is sufficient equality of arms between builders and local communities and, if they accept the builders’ argument, whether bland uniformity is the answer or whether we risk creating run-down, featureless, hollow estates 25 years from now.

My second point is, at this time, a non-point because fracking has not so far appeared in the Bill. However, my noble friend on the Front Bench has trailed it extensively so I take this opportunity to urge the Government, as they consider the whole issue of fracking, to consider at the same time the possibility of establishing a sovereign wealth fund for the UK. Noble Lords will be familiar with the concept of such a fund, whereby a country, instead of spending all the proceeds from the exploitation of a precious and finite resource on immediate consumption, puts some proportion aside to benefit future generations. One could argue that this is akin to an everlasting pension fund for UK plc. The noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Cameron of Dillington, were fringing on this when they talked about local participation in individual schemes.

Most noble Lords may think about this in terms of the Gulf states but, closer to home, Norway has an extremely successful sovereign wealth fund. As a result, Norwegian government bonds are some of the most sought after and highly rated in the world. A British sovereign wealth fund might not just help the country in the long term; it might also improve our financial stability in the short run. As a nation, we are jolly good at spending but rather less good at saving. As a nation, we have already blown the proceeds of the majority of the first great gift from nature, North Sea oil. The Government need to reflect carefully on whether we should repeat that experience with a second potentially great gift from nature, our gas reserves.

My third and final point is an entirely strategic one and one in which I argue that the Bill is set at the wrong end of the telescope because it makes no reference to how the population level may develop in this country over the next few years. As always when I raise this subject in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere, I begin that this is not a rerun of the argument about immigration or about the racial make-up of our country. I have absolutely no interest in either of those topics, but I have profound interest and concern about the rapid rise in the absolute level of population in this country and how this will affect every single settled member of our population.

The facts, which I used last week, can be simply put. On average, every day the population of this small island increases by 1,250. We are putting a large village or a small town on to the map of Britain every week and are doing so 52 weeks a year. The cumulative impact on our country will be huge. Take the example of housing, the subject of the Bill we are discussing today. Of course we all agree that our settled population should be properly housed. Common decency demands it. The average occupancy rate is 2.4 people per household, down from about 3.1 people 20 years ago. It is unlikely to increase much. It may even fall as people live longer, more people get divorced and more people choose to live alone. If we stick to the 2.4 figure, noble Lords can do the mathematics as well as I can: 1,250 people a day at 2.4 people per dwelling means 520 dwellings per day. There are 24 hours in the day. That requires 22 dwellings per hour, one every three minutes, night and day. This is before we begin to make an effort to improve our existing housing stock. This is just today’s challenge.

One could reasonably ask where all this might end. The mid projection of the Government Actuary’s Department and the Office for National Statistics is that by 2054, 40 years from now, the population of England will have increased by 13.1 million people. On the housing metric of 2.4 people per dwelling, that will require us to provide 5.4 million houses. Doing that will present and create political challenges of a very high order.

When we debate the housing crisis and how this Bill may help resolve it, it is fair enough, but we need to remind ourselves that we are addressing the outcome, not the underlying cause, of the challenge in the first place. This is not the time or the place to go further into this complex and difficult area of demographic change, except to say that every area of government will be challenged. Today’s headlines about gaps in the funding of the health service are just another feature. So often, the terminology used in the debate serves to confuse rather than to clarify.

I anticipate that before the end of the debate some noble Lord will raise the example of Thomas Malthus, pointing out that his predictions have proved wrong and so, by analogy, will the predictions that I have given the House today. My answer to that would be to say that indeed Malthus made predictions and indeed they were based on a hypothetical set of circumstances. My remarks are not based on a hypothesis. They are based on reality: 1,250 people are arriving in this country or being born in this country every day. That is a fact. Of all the challenges that the Government face, those of demography have the longest lead times. A nudge on the demographic tiller has no impact today. Its impact is felt in 10, 25 or 50 years. This Bill deals with today’s challenges, but I hope that someone, somewhere, is thinking about the longer-term challenges for our infrastructure and not, like Mr Micawber, hoping that something will turn up. These demographic changes now taking place contain serious implications for all parts of our country and society and the social cohesion and welfare of our nation.

17:45

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill offers lots of opportunities and I certainly look forward to hearing more about them. Due to the slightly fragile nature of my voice today, I will cut my points short. However, what I would like my noble friend the Minister to consider concerns the proposed new road company. The Bill suggests that existing environmental duties would apply to the new company. However, we have learnt that whenever there is a major new road scheme, the real difficulty comes when it is faced with environmental issues. The Bill offers us an opportunity to do more than simply apply the existing environmental duties to the new company. We could be requiring the new company to apply much more sophisticated new measures, such as whether or not a new road scheme would dramatically reduce total carbon emissions. This is now as important as whether there is a colony of great crested newts in the road’s path.

I am sure that your Lordships would not expect me to make a case for lesser environmental protection, and I am certainly not doing so. It is a tragedy when a road drives through an ancient woodland or SSSI. However, we must now balance all sorts of things in a much more sophisticated way. Just transferring existing duties is insufficient. I note the interesting suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about our view of such a road and whether it would incorporate, for example, a cycle path. That is an opportunity that is offered and might add further environmental pluses and carbon reductions. I would be disappointed if we simply transferred duties without using what we now know about carbon emission measurements, for example, to further the balance when we come to look at these things—my noble friend used the word “balance” in the context of housing, but I use it here.

On Part 2, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked “What species?”. My question is simply: what is “non-native”? I know that some of the NGOs are concerned that things that have been non-native for a long time, like the great bustard, the giant crane and even beavers and all sorts of things that fly and swim, could be caught by this. I do not suppose that anyone is going to say that they are invasive, but defining “non-native” more rigorously would be useful. Otherwise, we could be setting the status quo in law as a one-way system for biodiversity loss: if an animal, insect or any living creature ceases to appear in the wild, it ceases to be native.

Of course, I imagine that Part 2 applies mainly to plants, because that is where we have mainly seen the problem. I praise the Government for tackling the issue of landowners who will not allow measures to be taken on their land; that is positive. I simply echo the comments on ballast water of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Ballast water can import all sorts of things that you would not want to see, including things that damage our very infrastructure, such as our sewerage outlets and drainage systems. It is not so severe in this country, but in some parts of the world various crustaceans have really wrecked the water infrastructure of various cities.

My final point in this short contribution is about how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on affordable housing. I join him in hoping that nothing in the Bill will in any way jeopardise the ability of rural communities and local authorities in rural areas to make an affordable housing requirement.

17:49

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to question the Minister about the intentions that underlie the parts of the Infrastructure Bill that relate to our highways. However, at the outset, I will discuss the opinions of economists regarding the rules that should govern our access to highways.

One of the first people to think systematically about the economics of highways was the 19th-century French engineer and economist, Jules Dupuit, who considered the effects of imposing a toll on travellers for their passage over a bridge. He observed that if the toll were fixed with the object of maximising revenues, it would be liable to discourage the use of the bridge, thereby reducing its utility. Therefore, in most cases, the passage should be free.

The manner in which tariffs and tolls can diminish the utility of a capital investment is well illustrated by British experience. The case in point is the M6 toll road, which skirts the Birmingham conurbation and is the one UK example of a tolled motorway. It was opened in 2003 and is operated by Midlands Expressway Ltd—owned by Macquarie—which holds the concession until 2054. By all accounts, the road is underused; as regards HGVs, it appears that the overwhelming majority have chosen to remain on the congested M6 road. As a result, the maintenance costs faced by the Highways Agency for the M6 are disproportionately high.

However, there is a lacuna in Dupuit’s analysis, which concerns the costs of congestion. When road traffic has been slowed through congestion, any vehicle that is added to the stream exacerbates the problem. Not only does it bear its own direct costs, it can also add greatly to the costs of others by worsening the congestion. Those are its externalised costs. If the vehicle could be made to bear its externalised costs as well as its own direct costs, it might be deterred from adding to the congestion. British experience also serves to illustrate that point. There are two other significant cases of direct charges for road use: the bridge at the Dartford crossing and the Severn Bridge, which carries the M4 motorway. The congestion on both bridges is often so severe that it has been argued that a heightened toll should be imposed at the times of day when the bridges become all but impassable.

It must be conceded that, far from being governed by economic logic, the building and the administration of trunk roads and major highways is greatly influenced by social and political ideology. Thus, the autobahns in Germany and the autostrade in Italy, which were built in the period between the two World Wars, were intended to be seen as expressions of the purposiveness of the respective fascist regimes. In Britain there was no such motive and the programme of motorway building began much later, in the late 1950s, when it was overseen by the Conservative Minister of Transport, Ernest Marples.

Very little has been done in recent years to extend or upgrade Britain’s system of trunk roads and highways. The UK road network is one of the most heavily congested among the OECD countries. An OECD report of 2011-12 placed the UK in 26th position for the quality of its roads, which was towards the bottom of the list of developed countries. It has been doubted whether, nowadays, the Department for Transport has the skills to oversee the major investment projects in roads that seem to be required.

In those circumstances, the Government are making their proposals in the Infrastructure Bill to reform the management of our strategic highways. They propose to transform the Highways Agency into a government-owned company that would operate independently of the Department for Transport. The Government propose that the planning horizon of the Highways Company should be lengthened, and have declared an earnest commitment to provide stable long-term funding to support a road investment strategy.

The provisions of the Infrastructure Bill are best described as enabling legislation that will provide the framework for subsequent developments. They give us few indications of what, if anything, might materialise from a new approach to the management of the strategic road network. For further enlightenment, one might look to the document Action for Roads, which was issued by the Department for Transport in July 2013 and is full of hopes and good intentions. However, it needs to be assessed also on what it fails to mention and its major lacunae.

The document extols the new technologies that should enable information on the state of the traffic to be provided to drivers and enable rapid responses to accidents and breakdowns. However, there is barely a mention of road charging and no mention of congestion charging, both of which have been enabled by recent technological advances. That is understandable in view of the unpopularity of such schemes. Indeed, the national road pricing schemes that were promoted by the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 were abandoned due to public opposition.

Here, we can see the effects on the management of our road network of a deep-rooted social ideology. Many of our citizens regard it as their inalienable right to travel freely without let or hindrance on the Queen’s highways. They are barely mindful of the vast resources that are devoted to the maintenance of the highways, or of the great environmental cost that is associated with the exercise of their right to travel freely by road. Notwithstanding those deep-rooted attitudes, the Government should continue to pursue strategies of road pricing and congestion charging with a view to their eventual adoption in the appropriate circumstances. Such pricing mechanisms should be used primarily to ease congestion and with the secondary purpose of raising revenue to finance the development of the highways.

British attitudes to road pricing contrast markedly with those of the French. In France, there are numerous toll roads and those who wish to travel rapidly and for great distances have no alternative but to use them. The French seem to be wholly accepting of that. Another marked contrast between France and the UK is the French acceptance of a privatisation of the highways of a sort that I trust would not be acceptable in this country. Many of the French toll roads have been constructed by and are run by private companies, who have been granted long-term concessions. That is how the French have attempted to overcome the effects of the financial stringency of central Government, which might otherwise have inhibited the development of their national road network.

When faced with enabling legislation, one looks for hidden agendas and undeclared intentions. One can reasonably expect that there are plenty lying behind the Infrastructure Bill. It is remarkable, for example, as other noble Lords have mentioned, that whereas much of the accompanying documentation talks of a unique government-owned strategic highways company, the legislation talks of a plurality of such companies. Can the Minister say what, if anything, lies behind that legislative provision? I also seek an assurance that, notwithstanding the example of the M6 toll road, there is no intention to privatise large parts of our national road network, which would subject the roads to revenue-maximising tolls. In asking that, I observe that there are French consortia that are ready and waiting to take long-term concessions. I see grave disadvantages in ceding the ownership of yet more of our national infrastructure to foreign companies.

17:58

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill, though in part I wonder why some of it is necessary. I declare interests as president of the National Association of Local Councils, chairman of the Rights of Way Review Committee, a vice-president of the LGA, a landowner and a practising charter surveyor. I will stop there, as otherwise I shall use up all the time available.

Strategic thinking on infrastructure is at least partly a state of mind, although the collective mind of the state, if I may put it thus, may be rather a different issue if the construct of what we know as a silo mentality persists. In part, that needs to be broken down. I, too, regret that there is not rather more detail on some of what we have before us. That ought to be swiftly rectified, as other noble Lords have said, but it means that my comments are of necessity general rather than on the more specific issues that some noble Lords have concentrated on. A strategic focus on infrastructure is of course extremely welcome, but we have this issue with the prolonged timescales involved in public involvement in planning and environmental debate over infrastructure projects.

As an example of how damaging some of these are, noble Lords should look at the A27 through Sussex, once gazetted as the Folkestone to Honiton trunk road. A professional colleague of mine has bought and resold properties along its route on innumerable occasions, as first one compulsory purchase order acquisition and then the abandonment of the scheme and subsequent disposal of the properties acquired have been rolled out, only to be repeated a few years later. Still there are huge bottle-necks and still there are accidents on inadequate sections of road. The prosperity of several south-coast towns is prejudiced by this inertia. If the Bill affords a better way forward—I look forward to seeing the detail and hope it shows a better way forward—then I am all for it.

I was curious about the strategic highways companies, their total ownership by the Secretary of State, their obligations to adhere to guidance and directions of the Secretary of State and their propensity to be fined by the same Secretary of State if they do not adhere to those. This circularity left me a trifle bemused, so I tried it on my wife, who, incidentally, is Austrian. She immediately referred me to the tale recorded by Baron von Münchhausen about how he saved himself from drowning by pulling himself up by his own hair. Joking apart, assuming there will be fines, I would simply ask: to what purposes would this money be put? Is it simply a process of robbing Peter to pay Paul for the sake of demonstrating some near-commercial aspect, or is it something more important than that?

As other noble Lords have said, infrastructure takes many forms and at community level it is not just about access on to road systems to get householders to work or new housing serviced, but it is also about community assets, health and other facilities, amenity space, cycle and footpath routes, which have already been mentioned, multimodal travel options and, of course, freight, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Of course, it might help if community entitlement also extended to a stake in the infrastructure itself, but we need a better and more holistic grasp of what infrastructure is and how to procure it—on which we seem to perform poorly—not forgetting the impact on work-travel patterns afforded by improving internet and broadband. I am unsure that the Bill’s proposals match this, but I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me. It is so much more than roads, and if Government are thinking that that is so, then I shall be very pleased.

On Part 2 of the Bill, I want to comment on the proliferation of Japanese knotweed. As a frequent traveller on trains south of London, I notice a good deal of this on railway embankments. It may be that Railtrack will claim it was chucked over by householders the bottom of whose gardens adjoin the embankment, but never mind; there seems to be a lot of it about. While we concentrate on the exotic weeds mentioned in, I believe, Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we should not forget our very own home-grown noxious species, ragwort—the nodding yellow heads of which are only now beginning to appear—which is a serious contaminant of grazing land and grass forage.

On planning and land, I would only advocate a fair balance between community, private and national interests in any new arrangements, especially where land is already in some sort of public or amenity use. I hope there will be safeguards built into this.

I cannot help mentioning land registration, as I have a particular interest as chairman of the professional group in the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that deals with title, land registration and things like that. I regard the consolidation as potentially beneficial, but I am concerned that the driving force behind maintaining the asset that is represented by the local register may be lost once the particular synergy with the normal activity of local authorities is removed and there is no longer any financial benefit to them in trying to assist in that maintenance. I wonder whether this will be replicated in the hands of the Land Registry. Otherwise, having a single registry seems to make a lot of sense.

On the subject of the electronic nature of registries, I ask that the Government pay special attention to the apparent ability that exists to generate fraudulent transfer documents, which are available on the web, and the abuse that can be made of the system thereby. This is absolutely not a criticism of HM Land Registry; it is a criticism, if criticism it be, of the lax protocols that surround electronic transfer, registration and certification, particularly when one does not have somebody one actually knows at the other end of the phone or a letter in hard copy—it is all electronically generated and it can all be falsified. It is a reflection, as far as HMLR is concerned, of the information that it is obliged to use in the land registration process.

On fracking, I will only say this as a Sussex resident: the typical yield decline in the output from a fracking well is phenomenally steep. For all the theoretical reserves that exist, typically about 10% or less may be recoverable—maybe that will improve. I do not believe that aquifers are an issue; they operate much nearer the surface than the shale gas and shale oil reserves. However, at the surface one gets roads, tanks, pipes, vehicle tracks and the vehicles themselves that are all associated with this, even after the initial well drillers have all packed up and gone home. These may be acceptable, but I think we need a better understanding of cost-benefit, and some of that goes for much of the rest of the Bill.

18:07

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

My Lords, like others on this side, I give a half-hearted welcome to the Bill. The opening by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, put it in the right context. I am surprised that nobody else has mentioned the less than flattering view of Britain’s infrastructure by China’s Prime Minister when he was visiting here and gave us a rather low score. Perhaps, being an outsider, his view was rather more objective than the rose-tinted view from certain Benches here in the House of Lords.

All, I think, agree—road enthusiasts or otherwise—that strategic highways play an enormous role in the economic development of the country. I personally saw the extraordinary development in north Devon once the highway was produced under a previous Tory Government. It was remarkable how that led to economic development. There is no question but that road building is of vital importance. In our crowded island, however, other factors also are extremely important, particularly air pollution. Air pollution, as we now know, is much worse in big cities where a lot of traffic is present. It is particularly bad where motorways intersect. Therefore the planning and design of motorways should be of considerable concern in terms of air pollution.

Most importantly, the UK has benefited from the fact that we do not have massive motorways through the middle of our towns; in particular, not through the middle of London. Some noble Lords will recall going to protest meetings in the 1960s when there was a real possibility that we would have enormous highways right through London; fortunately, we did not. However, there is a threat for this in other big cities. I believe that that is one of the strategic areas.

The other point, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is on the question of carbon emissions, which is important in the case of major motorways and part of our impact on the climate. The other effect of motorways is that they can help or hinder water movement. In Malaysia, the motorway that goes into the centre of Kuala Lumpur is generally a road but can also be an enormous drain when there is enormous rainfall. Similarly, we could have road tunnels and cuttings to use our roadways as part of our water infrastructure.

The other point to emphasise, when you go to Germany, is that you should moderate your speed because of the noise. The Germans do not generally moderate their speed, but they do when suburbs tell them about the noise. We have extremely noisy roads, such as the North Circular Road, and those are aspects.

I want to come back to that in a moment, and the role of the private sector. I am surprised about the confidence in this Bill about the private company solution. Who will own the company? Will it be owned by five different banks all around the world? There was an article in one of the Sunday newspapers recently. Thames Water has been owned by many banks, finally ending up with the Macquarie bank in Australia. English people are being told all sorts of undesirable things on water to maintain the very high profit levels of this multiple bank ownership. How are we going to be sure to avoid this kind of thing?

Well run companies, such as we see in France with their motorways, not only run the motorways well but also give extremely good advice to road users. They tell them not to go too fast because it is dangerous and it is adding to carbon emissions. Here, under our Department for Transport control of the motorways, road users are told to go faster—they say, “In 70 minutes you will reach Bristol going at 70 miles an hour”. That is not the right message. The private sector with proper guidance could help, but the transparency that we need of private sector involvement needs to be a great improvement on what we have seen with the massive water companies.

The other feature of roads and road strategy is the question of whether they will continue to be the same. Are we going to have automatically controlled cars and cars and vehicles that are electrically driven? The big question is whether the investment and financial case being put forward for roads is based on current technology. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on that, and on who will be responsible for making the strategic technological decisions.

It is very important that there should be an overall strategic view on highways as regards the transport, economic and environmental aspects. That issue was of course reviewed in the Armitt infrastructure report, which put all those things together—things which we are not seeing at all in the Bill as drafted. In his report, which he produced with a number of important advisers, including my noble friend Lord Adonis, it was suggested that roads need to be considered in a broad context, obtaining maximum value. That requires an integrated approach by government. I have mentioned some features, but other important ones include other aspects of transport, such as rail. Surely, many railway journeys to the south-west tip of Cornwall would be much more comfortable for everybody if the car was put on a train and the train went to Penzance—the sort of thing that used to happen and which still happens in France. Everybody charging down these roads to that tiny peninsula at the end of Britain is a very strange thing to do.

Finally, there is shipping, which is a very important aspect of transportation around the coast of the UK. This was discussed in considerable detail when we had our coastal Bill in 2009-10, and should again be considered in a strategic way.

On other aspects of the Bill, I welcome the speeding up and clarification on land assets and conveyancing. Purchasing and conveyancing in the UK is nothing like as fast as it is in some other countries, and I hope that the efficiencies there will bring benefits. We should take on board the comments made about the possibility of fraud, when you have a highly computerised system. With people not understanding the process, there are dangers.

In Part 4 there is the discussion of indigenous oil and gas, as the Minister rightly emphasised. Will this be a possible source of energy for the UK via fracking? It is important to consider all the environmental costs. It is unknown by many in Britain, as we have been told here by visiting American politicians, that in the energy Bill proposed by President Bush he explicitly said that the costs of water and water clean-up would not be ascribed to the energy. It is therefore really important that all the environmental costs should be ascribed to the energy benefits or costs of fracking. It would be useful to have that point clearly made. The assumption in all the discussions is that you put a pipe down in the ground and oil or gas will come up out of the pipe. But the point about the experience of America is that, once you start really forcing the structure of the ground well below, you can get a release of gas coming up through other cracks, and some of these—as you can see when you look at the photographs from North Dakota—are very serious indeed. You can see flames popping up in between the nodding donkey gas extractors. There are still significant features of the chemistry of shale that need to be understood, when the shale is there in the presence of water. I visited a chemistry lab at the University of Leicester where they are studying this, and they pointed out that there were still important research questions to be assessed.

Another feature of Part 4 is the encouragement to build more energy-saving houses, as the Minister explained, with technology solutions that should of course include not only new sorts of emission but also ventilation and insulation, which are serious problems. Noble Lords might be interested to know that there is a nice book in the Library, which I edited, called London’s Environment, published in 2005, in which we described in great detail the excitement of the House of Lords committees at that time about what was happening in some of the new housing developments, in BedZED and Woking, some of which were looked at by many other countries. The Minister was right to imply that much of this technology is known, but the question is now to push this out and to ensure that it is available to social houses. I am afraid to say that some social housing is particularly bad with regard to insulation and ventilation, and this causes ill health, so housing for the whole community must be at an appropriate level.

Clause 26 in Part 4 has this very important development, which has been quite widespread in other European countries, in involving community investment in renewable energy. In Denmark, it had a great impact on involving people in their local wind farm installations. As the Bill describes it at the moment, it is a question of the community investing in the generation; there is no discussion that I have seen about generating local electrical networks. Woking was a borough run with no overall control, and some people say that that is why the Woking experiment or development worked so well—but that is a political point. It was at any rate extremely innovative, and Mayor Livingstone said that he wanted to make London look like Woking. That did not quite happen, but it was an ambition. One important point that was made was that the people in Woking could use a local electrical network and then the price of electricity that they paid for was much reduced. I suspect that the scheme being envisaged here is that community people might benefit to some extent from the income to the generators, but will they get cheap electricity out of their electrical plug to their kettle? I am not so sure about that. It is very important to have this done in an integrated way.

Finally, it is very important that if communities are to be involved in fracking, as has been suggested—I think that the Minister suggested that—they must also contribute to the costs. As others have emphasised, these costs include roadways and destruction of the local bio-environment, as well as the costs of the water supply and clean-up and recycling. So it is not just a free lunch. There will be quite considerable investment in all of that—but I believe that if the community is involved the right answer might be obtained.

18:19

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the briefing notes accompanying the Bill say that its purpose is to:

“Bolster investment in infrastructure by allowing stable long-term funding, deliver better value for money and relieve unnecessary administrative pressures. The Bill would increase transparency of information provision and improve planning processes, allowing us to get Britain building for our future and compete in the global race”.

I do not think that any noble Lords who have taken part in this debate could disagree with those motives. Indeed, we have had an interesting debate on whether or not the Bill will deliver what this country desperately needs—a modern, efficient infrastructure to allow the economy to continue to grow.

When I served in the Scottish Parliament, my constituency had the unenviable record of being the largest area in Europe not served by a railway line. That is being corrected as the Borders Railway is finally being restored following its closure in 1969. I was intimately involved in that process during my time in the Scottish Parliament. I had the unenviable record of serving on the Scottish parliamentary committee that approved the Edinburgh tram scheme, which I confess I did not readily admit to Edinburgh taxi drivers when I was a passenger in their cabs. Therefore, I am fully aware of the complexity involved in bringing to fruition the infrastructure that we need.

The Borders Railway was a difficult project which the Scottish Government had wanted to fund—I think erroneously—through what they claimed was an innovative funding route, but which I was concerned was an untested and unsure funding route. However, the Government ultimately changed their position on that and are now using the regulated asset base for United Kingdom funding. I am pleased to note that the Scottish National Party is using United Kingdom infrastructure funding support to deliver a Scottish infrastructure project. The tram scheme, which the Scottish Parliament approved but was not subsequently built in full, is costing £125 million a mile. Some people refer to gold-plated infrastructure projects, but, as regards that scheme, the track itself could be said to be gold-plated. Our national objective is to ensure that the private and public sectors have the necessary professional capacity in this regard as well as proper planning and legislative frameworks. One thing that has not emerged in the debate so far is the factor which can make an infrastructure project—whether it involves transport, housing or energy—successful or a source of difficulty, as with the trams, and that is the professional capacity of the teams that put these projects together. If this Bill is to be successful, the projects which it seeks to deliver in a more efficient way will be delivered only if there is that professional capacity.

I wish to devote the rest of my remarks to an issue that was referred to in the gracious Speech and in the Minister’s introduction to this debate—offshore oil and gas. However, that issue is not included in the Bill. I will not draw the conclusion drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—namely, that we will have to legislate for that aspect on the hoof. The Wood review reported to my right honourable friend Edward Davey on 24 February this year. That review is a substantive piece of work with significant consequences for the whole of the United Kingdom oil and gas sector. Given the timeframe within which the Wood review reported to the Government, it is understandable that amendments to the Bill on that issue will have to be tabled during its passage through Parliament. Agreement will have to be reached with the industry to ensure that the legislation is as robust as possible. The clear commitment that was given by the Government in accepting Sir Ian Wood’s conclusions and recommendations in full has been welcomed by the industry. Similarly, the statement in the gracious Speech that this year’s legislative programme will contain measures to allow for “maximising North Sea resources” is also welcome.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

The noble Lord seems to be proposing a new constitutional principle, whereby the Government say that they have an idea but they are not sure what it is, so they say, “Here is a Bill. When we have done some more thinking on it, we will introduce it”. This could be applied across the board. That is not how Parliament works. Is this a new procedure being advocated by the noble Lord’s Benches, in which case could he give us his own little background constitutional paper as to how Parliament should work on this basis?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

The noble Lord obviously has more experience in this House than I have. I am a mere new Member. However, as a mere new Member, I have been an observer of parliamentary procedure for long enough to realise that it is perfectly common for a Government to table amendments, which on occasion have been substantive. Indeed, over many years the party opposite has tabled amendments on substantive points. My point, which the noble Lord unfortunately did not take on board but which I hope others will and will be more charitable in understanding it, is that when legislation is being brought forward which will make a significant contribution to the success of the British economy, it is best done after proper and due participation and consultation with the sector which it will legislate. That is why the Government have indicated that they will bring forward measures before Committee, as the Minister said in her opening speech, to which the noble Lord no doubt listened.

In the debate on the gracious Speech in another place, the Prime Minister gave a strong indication to my honourable friend Sir Robert Smith, the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, in relation to the oil and gas industry:

“My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully for his constituency and for that absolutely vital industry which, as he says, is vital not just for Scotland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. We are going to make sure that the recommendations of the Wood review are included in our infrastructure Bill, which is a key Bill at the heart of this Queen’s Speech”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/6/14; col. 27.]

The Prime Minister was right: this is a vital sector. Therefore, I hope that during the passage of this Bill we will give due consideration to the impact which that sector makes to the whole United Kingdom economy. It is 50 years since the first licences were issued. Some 42 billion barrels of oil have already been produced and up to 20 billion more could still be produced. The United Kingdom continental shelf production meets 60% of UK oil demand and 50% of UK gas demand and directly and indirectly supports 450,000 jobs across the UK. It paid 9% of all UK corporate taxes in the last financial year, which is 2% of all United Kingdom tax receipts. Decommissioning relief introduced by this Government represents around 1% of our GDP.

The Government intend to include measures in the Bill to take forward the recommendations of the Wood review. The Bill provides us with an excellent opportunity to ensure that the UK continental shelf is able to face the very complex and difficult challenges which lie ahead. Although more than £14 billion was invested in the continental shelf in 2013—a record amount—production has fallen by 37% between 2010 and 2013, and production efficiency has fallen from 80% in 2004 to 60% in 2012. Rising exploration costs and falling success rates have led to fewer wells being drilled. This was the background to Sir Ian Wood being asked by my right honourable friend Edward Davey to carry out a review into how the UK continental shelf can maximise economic recovery for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Sir Ian Wood’s four recommendations are significant. Two of them in particular require legislative change in this Parliament; and both will, I hope, be the source of proper scrutiny when the Bill passes through Parliament. One is to create a new arm’s-length regulatory body to ensure that there is collaboration in exploration, development and production across the industry. Although it will be arm’s-length from the Government, they will be a partner. My right honourable friend Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary, only last week indicated at the Oil and Gas UK conference that the Government accept this recommendation in full. He also announced that the authority should be called the “Oil and Gas Authority” and be based in Aberdeen. As regards the other recommendation of Sir Ian Wood, my honourable friend said that it will ensure that protocols and processes will be in place for dispute resolution and for ensuring that there is better co-ordination and collaboration among the industry, and that the licensing regime will be rationalised. All these measures will require proper and full scrutiny by Parliament. That is why the signal in the Queen’s Speech and the Minister’s announcement are significant.

Another area that has been touched on is taxation and revenue. The Government have stated that the new oil and gas authority will carry out a wholesale review of the ring-fenced tax regime for the oil and gas industry. This has the potential to be a hugely significant piece of work, which will have repercussions not only for the Scottish economy, where the oil and gas sector represents nearly one-third of the entire GDP, but for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Finally, I seek further clarification from the Minister. It was welcome that she indicated that it is the Government’s intention to bring forward amendments before Committee, but is it the Government’s intention that those amendments will cover all the recommendations of the Wood review on the relationship with industry, how clear they will be on the funding of the authority, and how that authority will take forward its work on the fiscal review? Sir Ian Wood gave a clear steer that he wanted the new authority and regulator, and his recommendations, to be taken on board so that the industry can look forward with confidence to a strong and clear regulatory regime and licensing for the future of the sector. It is the Government’s intention; I hope that it is Parliament’s will and that no further constitutional theory needs to be put forward to ensure that the future of the oil and gas sector is as strong as it can be, so that we can rely on it well into the future.

18:33

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to tackle rather a different dimension to the Bill but, at the outset, I remind the House that my home is in a national park and that I am a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks and a patron of Friends of the Lake District. I am also a strong supporter of the CPRE.

There is a great deal to be said in favour of an infrastructure Bill. Infrastructure is of course fundamental to a strong economy and an effectively functioning society. However, the economy and the supporting infrastructure are never ends in themselves but are part of the means by which we achieve a society worth living in. That brings us straight into the realm of qualitative considerations.

Surely we all agree that the countryside, including as it does the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and the green belts, not to mention biodiversity, is a priceless asset. It enriches the soul, provides indispensible opportunities for the physical and challenging activity so vital for a healthy nation, and is in many ways the lung system of the United Kingdom. The countryside provides the contrast that is psychologically vital amid the pressures, stresses and demands of our otherwise high-octane life. Access for everybody to the experience it provides should at all times be a key priority in public policy. My formative years were during the war and immediately afterwards. I was deeply impressed as a youngster by the way that great post-war Government never forgot that reality, amid all the other challenges of recovery.

It is in that context that I raise certain points for clarification. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear them up at Second Reading or, if not tonight, by letter, which would, presumably, be placed in the Library. Why really is the Highways Agency to be turned into strategic highways companies? Is it genuinely and primarily about delivering a higher-quality and more effective service for the implementation of public policy? Or is it really, when everything else has been stripped away, another Treasury-inspired, ideological determination to reduce the size of the state?

Value for money is of course critical. Could not maximum economic efficiency and cost savings, however, be achieved by better management within the present system, rather than by this questionable legislation? The Transport Committee in the House of Commons is not convinced. Bodies such as the CPRE are deeply anxious and—like, I suspect, many others in this House—I share the doubts of both. The story of the railways and other public utilities is hardly altogether universally reassuring. What matters most is the effectiveness and quality of service provided, not simply the profitability of the undertaking. Undeniably, profitability can be one indicator—although, all too often crude and deceptive—of efficiency.

We still need far more detailed information, and I have been interested to hear other noble Lords stressing this point. We are going into legislation once again in the absence of all the detailed information that should be available. Can the Government clarify whether the terms of reference for the proposed roads watchdog will include a requirement to consider the needs of local communities and the enhanced protection of the natural environment, and not just the interests of road users? If not, why not? Similarly, what about co-operation between the new company, local authorities and other transport bodies? What are the implications for present requirements under the Localism Act 2011 and the network management duty in the Traffic Management Act 2004? Will not the role of the roads monitor need to be expanded to include adjudication when there are policy differences between the highways company and, for example, city regions? After the first road investment strategy, is parliamentary responsibility to be abandoned? Where is the provision for parliamentary oversight of future road investment strategy? Why does the schedule provide only for consultation for varying an RIS but not, as I understand it, the setting of new ones in the first place for each five-year period?

Are the Government establishing—again, if not, why not—new arrangements for environmental regulation covering carbon emissions from the strategic road network and its total land take, licensing conditions to reduce the environmental impacts of existing roads, and the management of demand, rather than settling just for reducing the harm caused by new roads? Why is the opportunity not being taken to support a wider range of highly necessary environmental and social objectives by, for example, a commitment to increase funding for walking and cycling? Where is the statutory commitment to enhancing the well-being of biodiversity and landscape—one of the UK’s finest and most important public goods? Why is it not firmly there in the Bill?

If a principal purpose of the RIS is intended to be greater long-term certainty for the future funding of major roads, will the Government guarantee that this will not be at the expense of reducing funding for local road maintenance, road safety and alternatives to road building such as public transport and, of course, walking and cycling? As things stand, there is no certainty that the local sustainable transport fund will be available beyond 2016. Since its inception in 2011, it has supported improved public transport provision in a number of national parks, but there is still much more that could be done.

It is proposed that the Secretary of State should have discretion to allow non-material changes to be made to nationally significant infrastructure projects without developers having to resort to the process of seeking development consent. That is a very broad power. It may make a lot of sense in some circumstances, but will the Government provide more detail about how the power would be exercised in practice, and about what the checks and balances would be?

The Bill would allow certain types of planning conditions to be automatically discharged if a local authority fails to make a decision in a prescribed time. Is that always acceptable? In the real world, planning departments are already under great pressure, accentuated by recent cuts, in getting local plans into place. The right to appeal against the planning condition already exists. Why is this additional power required? Again, how will it work in practice, and what would be the checks and balances?

The statutory purposes of the national parks are to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for public enjoyment and understanding of their special qualities. Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 requires that:

“In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to”,

its statutory purposes. As the proposed highways company will no longer be a public body, it is not clear whether the Section 62 duty would automatically continue to apply. Will the Government give an unqualified reassurance that the duty to have regard to national park purposes will apply to the new government-owned company and tell us precisely how? Indeed, I hope any Government committed to a UK worth living in would look to all departments to ensure an enhanced and strong future for the countryside, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, green belts and our biodiversity system.

Where this Bill relates to housing, I take second place to nobody in my total conviction that we desperately need a concerted drive for an adequate number of decent, affordable houses. However, I equally take second place to nobody in my conviction that these houses must never be built in such a way that they impinge on and endanger those priceless dimensions, including the UK’s biodiversity, which are there to be inherited and enjoyed by the people living in those houses. The challenge in social planning is not the countryside versus housing—that is an oversimplified and very misleading notion—but the countryside and houses. Housing must be situated in brownfield sites and numerous other places, not least used or underused government land, which should be prioritised for homes. Lack of imagination, inertia and short-sighted profiteering are too often the real enemies.

18:44

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, a Bill on infrastructure that is mainly to do with the rearrangement of Whitehall agencies and minor improvements in planning application procedures invites the question of what the relationship is between its provisions and the promotion of investment in infrastructure.

My first point is that cutting public capital investment has been an integral part of the Government’s strategy for reducing the budget deficit—in fact, the only successful part. Gross public sector investment fell from £69 billion in 2009-10 to £45 billion in 2013-14 and has barely started to creep up. That is always how it happens. Cutting capital spending is much easier than cutting current spending. Private sector investment has not taken up the slack. Business investment remains 20% below its pre-crisis peak. These are permanent losses: infrastructure not built or improved in the past four years. My first question about the Bill is: to what extent does it replace or improve the assets forgone?

I read in the CBI briefing:

“'We fully support the introduction of the Road Investment Strategy which will, for the first time, set out a long term investment plan for the major road network. We believe this strategy will ease business concerns over stop/start investment and help build confidence in the supply chain about the future pipeline of work”.

I go along with that. But it is important to note that there is so far no road investment strategy. According to Schedule 1 to the Bill, the Secretary of State must provide a strategic highways company with proposals for a road investment strategy within one year. Further, there is nothing in the Bill that says the Secretary of State must co-ordinate the road investment strategy with the rail investment strategy, or with any other investment strategy affecting transport. For example, how will the road strategy mesh with the railway strategy, particularly HS2? How will it square with the Government’s energy policy? These are some of the blank pages mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. What we need, surely, is an integrated transport strategy, covering roads, railways, air transport and shipping, with attention to energy use and environmental issues. Is any government agency charged with oversight of transport needs as a whole? I do not know. If not, I would support the Labour Party’s proposal for an independent national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs. That surely is sensible. If there is a gap, the Bill should be amended to secure this aim.

My second question is: how much will the strategic highways company be allowed to spend? According to the Roads Minister, Robert Goodwill, the Government aim to spend £10.7 billion on major road improvements in the next five years. This will presumably be the sum allowed to the highways company—or will it? Is it identical to that sum? Can the Minister confirm my understanding of that, or have I got it wrong? If it is so, it seems odd to give the company £10 billion to spend before anyone has worked out what it is to spend it on. Perhaps that is another blank page.

My third question is: how will the new independent company be financed? Four years ago I proposed a national investment bank, capitalised by the Government, that would be allowed to borrow a conservative multiple of its assets. The model was very much that of the successful European and Nordic investment banks. What I envisaged then was up to £100 billion of infrastructure investment over five years, largely financed by borrowing. Instead we got the green bank, with capital of £3 billion and no borrowing power at all. Apparently, a continuation of this rather dismal set-up is envisaged now, as revealed in an unpromising exchange in the other place on 11 December 2013. I quote from Hansard:

“Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the proposed Government-owned company replacing the Highways Agency will be able to borrow at (a) government or (b) private industry rates”.

Mr Goodwill replied:

“The new company will be funded directly from public funds and therefore it is not expected that external borrowing is going to be a requirement for financing activities. However the Department is still working on the detailed financial arrangements”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/13; col. 220W.]

And it is still working, as far as I know.

The Labour Party seems equally cagey about borrowing for investment. It proposes to spend £10 billion to build 400,000 affordable houses in one year—something that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, endorses, as I do—but how is that going to be financed? We are not given a clue. There is a promise only to “bring forward” housing investment, but of course housing is one thing that one should be able to finance by borrowing because one has a stream of income to service the debt.

I should like to end by trying to clear up a common confusion about the role of borrowing in the Government’s budget. According to current orthodoxy, all borrowing, for whatever purpose, is bad and the ideal state of affairs to which every prudent Government must strive is an annually, or at least cyclically, balanced budget. However, that has nothing to do with the theory of public finance, which has always made a distinction between current account and capital account spending and the deficits allowable on each. A pure current account expenditure is for a good or service which gives rise to no government-owned asset that will produce future value. It should therefore always be covered by taxation. On the other hand, capital account expenditure is the purchase of a durable asset. If that purchase gives the Government command over a prospective future stream of returns whose present value is greater than or equal to the present cost of acquiring the asset, borrowing is justified because it does not give rise to a new debt.

The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has argued that the current/capital distinction does not have the same meaning in the public as in the private sector because, in general, capital investments by the state do not produce a cash return to service debt interest. However, that is not always so—it is too sweeping. Some capital investments, such as utilities, railways and undergrounds, do produce a cash return. Others, such as roads and bridges, can be made to do so by road pricing or tolls. Even if the Government choose not to charge for the use of schools or hospitals, they can work out a shadow price in deciding whether to make the investment, setting aside revenues from tax to meet the service debt charge. Provided the expected returns, actual or imputed, equal the cost of acquiring the asset, borrowing will be justified since the additional debt will be self-liquidating.

I think that the Liberal Democrats are slowly buying into that distinction. For example, they have promised to borrow to invest in capital projects, but they would not revive Gordon Brown’s golden rule, claiming that Labour slapped the words,

“‘capital spending’ on anything and everything”.

Thus, they would not include under capital spending new schools or hospitals but only schemes which “boost economic growth”. But why should building roads and houses boost economic growth more than building schools or hospitals? Then they have a new debt rule which seems to make no sense, but at least goaded, I suspect, by the Secretary of State for Business, they are moving in the direction of making that distinction between capital and current spending which the Conservative parts of the coalition have rejected.

A House of Lords Second Reading on a limited roads Bill is not the place for a disquisition on the theory of fiscal policy and I apologise to the House for burdening it with one. However, it is important to make the point that dysfunctional public accounting conventions should not stand in the way of giving the nation the infrastructure which it needs and which only the public sector can make or underwrite.

18:54

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

My Lords, I have probably been the victim of more reorganisations than many of your Lordships. All of them have promised large economies and they have always promised a better future, but they have usually resulted in more expenditure and another reorganisation. So the idea that reorganising things is necessarily going to produce a revolution is wrong.

I am also concerned about the idea that this government-owned company will somehow take the influence of the ministry out of the equation. I am confirmed in that by the fact that at Reading station, where huge infrastructure work is being progressed by Network Rail, signs on the wall have just appeared saying “Department for Transport” to show that the ministry is really still in control. It is a sort of sinister creeping of bureaucracy into that company, and I think that the same may be the case with a road company.

Another thing that I would like to touch on is the way that this company is being presented as an analogy to Network Rail. It is not really an analogy. Network Rail has responsibility for the whole of the railway infrastructure as well as safety, whereas this company will have responsibility for the busiest 2% of the road network. However, there is no commitment to deal with the other 98% of the road network.

I am in favour of necessary road building where there is a strategic and a safety case for it, as there is with the A1 north of Newcastle going up into Scotland, as I have said before. However, we have to recognise that the local road network, including a lot of trunk roads, is in a sore condition. It needs substantial structural maintenance. I am not sure how much of the money promised for the proposed new highways company will in fact find its way into capital expenditure, because we have been told that a large part of the network will be resurfaced in the next few years. Most of us think that resurfacing networks is not new building; it is probably catching up following neglect of the past rather than looking to the future.

I very much endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that it is important to distinguish clearly between capital and revenue. It is also quite reasonable to borrow for proper capital expenditure, which should have a rate of return.

I want to look for a moment at local authorities, whose road expenditure is discretionary. It is expenditure that gets raided whenever schools or other local authority services, such as social services, need more money. I believe that local authorities need proper guidance on how they should repair their highways, and of course they need to be brought within the consultation machinery for any investment strategy. I also believe that the utilities do enormous damage to our highways network. They push their way in, often without regard for the motorist or the lorry driver. They declare states of emergency where I believe that such emergencies do not exist. The sanctions they suffer as a result of overruns and so on are quite ineffective in bringing any discipline. I hope that the Minister will say something about how the utilities can be brought within a reasonable discipline in their access to the highway, because they cause enormous damage.

I am concerned about the justification for new road building or for any roadworks. I believe that the benefits are much wider than the present system tends to show. Millions of small but unpredictable and imperceptible time savings are one of the major inputs to the economic appraisal of our road network. A better way is necessary to probe the economic value of improvements, which might be in housing, employment or land values, rather than the funny money used to justify it now. Is any work being done to bring the present system up to date?

Is the Minister satisfied with the present system of looking at the way in which roads are destroyed by heavy lorries, to which reference has already been made? It was probably about 30 to 40 years ago that it was decided that the damage inflicted by a heavy lorry on a road surface was the fourth power of the axle load. Cars inflict virtually no damage, which is the case with the M6 toll road, and lorries inflict huge damage, which is shown by what goes on on the M6. It is time that that also is revisited so that we are satisfied that we are apportioning the cost of roads fairly between the motorist and the heavy goods vehicle.

I was very pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, put in a good work for road pricing. I believe that it is the best way to ration any scarce resource. It has been maligned in the press, which gives the impression that everyone will pay more. Vast numbers of people in rural and far-flung areas will pay very much less. The busy parts of the roads cause the problems, to which a proper pricing policy should be applied. I am a veteran of driving over the bridge from Copenhagen to Malmo and Stockholm, which is financed in that way. It is a painless system which works. People who say that it does not work are wrong.

Finally, I endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about level crossings. In my view, the next major railway accident will be on a level crossing. It will probably be followed by a judicial review, which will take another X number of years to come up with the recommendations that the Government already have before them. I ask them to look closely at whether the Bill can be amended in any useful way to deal with that problem.

19:04

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, as others have described, this is a hotchpotch of a Bill with important chunks still missing—perhaps more than we thought—and key related consultation processes still running their course or with conclusions yet undisclosed. In infrastructure parlance, the Bill could hardly be called shovel ready. Therefore, we have an intensive job to undertake to evaluate its impact on growth, and to address how it contributes to increasing housing supply and to mitigating the housing crisis that we face in this country. I propose to focus my efforts on Part 3, which relates to planning and land.

The CBI, in its submission to us for today’s debate, identified that the Planning Act 2008 has already helped to boost investor confidence by creating a fast-track approach with clear milestones and decision-making points. That is not to say it cannot be refined and improved in the light of practical experience, which Clauses 17 to 19 purport to do as part of a wider implementation plan following the recent consultation. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, we can support the changes relating to the appointment of an examining authority and the flexibility of two-person panels, although it remains to be seen whether the savings proposed will materialise.

We intend to probe the proposals for a new process of making development consent orders but are in accord with what the Bill is seeking to achieve. We note that a consultation is to be launched on a revised process but not until August of this year, which means that we are unlikely to have the benefit of the Government’s response by the time we conclude Committee or even all stages of the Bill. Perhaps I may ask the Minister why this cannot be expedited.

The provisions in Clause 20 are altogether more concerning. As we have heard, the clause would permit the deemed discharge of a planning condition such that a local planning authority would be unable to take enforcement action or stop development. As the Minister identified, the need to improve the approach to planning conditions was flagged in the Killian Pretty review commissioned by the previous Government and acknowledged then as needing to be addressed. We propose to examine whether the approach in Clause 20 is the best way of doing so.

Certainly, we would view with great caution anything which undermines the role of the local planning authority in the planning process. We have already seen in the Growth and Infrastructure Act opportunities for developers to bypass a designated local planning authority and, on the basis of a government consultation just concluded, for the criteria for designation to be tightened. That same consultation also covered possible changes to affordable housing contributions and the proposal to introduce a new 10-unit threshold for Section 106. Will the Minister tell us when we might expect the Government’s response to this part of the consultation because its implications for an already dire affordable housing situation could be very grim, particularly for rural communities—a point to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred? Is it proposed that this Bill would cover this issue?

Perhaps the Minister might also say when we might expect the Government’s response to the allowable solutions consultation to pave the way for zero-carbon homes and details of how the small builders’ exemption is to work in a way that does not fundamentally undermine the policy. When will we see this legislation?

I acknowledge the briefing from the RTPI, which sets out the position on planning conditions with its usual clarity and focus. It recognises the concerns over the growth and breadth of planning conditions and we would agree with its view that the need for conditions attached to planning consent should be necessary and proportionate, and that they should be discharged safely and expeditiously so that development can proceed quickly.

We are reminded also of the essential role of planning conditions, which is to make an otherwise acceptable planning application acceptable; that is, to support development. We share the view that the widespread use of Clause 20 could undermine local planning authorities’ attempts to approve more marginal applications, thus having the perverse effect of holding back approvals. The extent of the conditions to which the clause could apply is also unclear and there is the fundamental matter of whether it applies to conditions laid down on behalf of statutory consultees. If so, how is it to be assured that such consultees expedite their work?

The RTPI suggests that the intention is to focus on inconsequential and burdensome information requests. Perhaps the Minister would clarify whether that is the position. Where would that leave conditions which focus, say, on the management of construction works, which can play a vital role in ensuring the health and safety of workers and the public? We would be concerned about artificial timescales being applied to the operation of these provisions that do not fairly reflect the resource position of councils, many of which are struggling to maintain their planning departments.

We would also wish to explore the need for protections where it might be the actions or inactions of developers that are frustrating the ability of the local planning authority to respond within a given timeframe. We would prefer these matters to be taken forward by joint working between developers and local planning authorities rather than via another centralising measure.

We hear that the Government's public sector land programme is to be facilitated by enabling existing arm’s-length bodies to transfer land directly to the HCA rather than first to the parent department. We can see the intrinsic merit of this change in reducing bureaucracy and speeding up the release of land for new homes. However, we need to be reassured that with the parent department out of the loop there will be no loss of accountability and transparency in determining what land is to be released for development. The Minister will be aware—she referred to it in her opening speech—of concerns expressed about the designated sites and irreplaceable habitats and the Public Forest Estate being sold off. Similar issues arise in respect of the ability of the HCA, as well as the GLA and mayoral development corporations, to transfer land without the easements, rights and restrictions that they have suspended being revived.

Our briefing note suggests that this is doing no more than replicating the position of those currently purchasing from local authorities and other regeneration bodies. The Minister called it an oversight. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised about the extent to which these powers might interfere with the public interest and we will need to probe the boundaries of these proposals and whether specific exemptions would be appropriate. Again, the Minister may have dealt with this by referring to the fact that these impact only on private and not public interests.

Clauses 23 and 24 bring us to another area of considerable controversy. These measures involve the transfer of responsibility for local land charges from local authorities to the Chief Land Registrar, the maintenance of a fully electronic register of land charges and the extension of the powers of the CLR to provide wider property services. These changes have been the subject of a consultation conducted by the Land Registry that closed on 9 March, with some 70-odd pages of government response being delivered just a couple of days ago—which was not the most helpful timing. So far as one can gather from an initial reading of the government response, it is effectively rubber-stamping the original proposals, although the 15-year cut-off for digitalising the charges register is to be removed.

However, wider concerns arise from a parallel BIS consultation—to which there has as yet been no formal government response—that promulgated the creation of a separate Land Registry service delivery company distinct from the office of the Chief Land Registrar, which would remain responsible for policy. Although the consultation sets out several possibilities for ownership and control of the service delivery company, there is a growing suspicion that the agenda is for it to be privatised, and that, the consultation notwithstanding, the Government have already discounted the service remaining in public ownership. Will the Minister categorically confirm today that this is not the case and that it is not proposed to privatise this service?

We have seen no compelling case for the privatisation of a government agency which, as my noble friend said, routinely returns good profits to the Treasury—some £98 million last year—and references to greater flexibilities to operate around pay and recruitment have a familiar ring. The botched sale of the Royal Mail gives us no confidence that the Government will secure value for money on a privatisation.

The matter of corporate structure and ownership is not currently in the Bill, but it inevitably overhangs consideration of the proposal for a central land charges register and the transfer from local authorities, and the fear that it is being fattened up for privatisation. For those reasons, we have called for a proper independently run consultation on the central register proposition. These things are important. The Land Registry plays an essential role in the functioning of the property market. Its principal purpose is to keep a register of title to freehold and leasehold land and charges throughout England and Wales, and to record dealings in such land. Local land charges are the mechanism whereby purchasers can seek information about a property. The integrity, ease and efficiency of these arrangements are of paramount importance and it is against these requirements that propositions for change should be judged.

We are entirely supportive of a programme of continuing improvement of the service offered, including embracing digitalisation, although the Law Society points out that this is not the most pressing issue in the conveyancing world. Despite acknowledged improvements in recent times, there is more to be accomplished in terms of consistency of approach across local authorities, quicker turnaround times and more transparent charging, and we need to examine alternative approaches to achieving this as well as that proposed in the consultation.

Of course, the government proposals are not without risk. Local land charges involve inquiries of local authorities of the land that they hold. The search comes in two parts; entries on the register of local land charges and the answers to queries put to local authorities—form CON29, I think it is called. The Bill would centralise the register but the CON29 inquiries would remain directed at local authorities, so we would need to scrutinise the consequences of this fragmentation, particularly as the two sets of inquiries are invariably made together and the answers to each can be interdependent. Answers to entries on the register might comprise details of conservation areas or listed buildings. Answers on CON29 might include the planning and building control history and whether nearby roads are maintained at public expense.

It is understood that the CON29 facility is non-statutory. Have the Government given any thought to what would happen if hard-pressed local authorities terminated their services? As the LGA points out, centralisation makes it more difficult to integrate advice on planning, highways and other locally regulated services. Moreover, there are likely to be adverse financial implications for councils, which will lose income from land charge fees but still have to deal with local queries and manage data co-ordination.

The Bill before us is incomplete and incoherent. It has some useful provisions that will help speed up infrastructure provision and facilitate the much-needed building of housing. However, it fails to deliver a long-term step-change plan to tackle our housing crisis or to provide a vision for doing so. That will have to await a change of government.

19:18

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a most informative and splendid debate, although perhaps a little too long for such a modest measure. I shall try to keep my remarks to the absolute minimum. My noble friend Lord McKenzie has dealt with Part 3 of the Bill. He will lead for the Opposition in Committee on those issues and he has clearly spelled out the anxieties that we have about aspects of Part 3. I reinforce the obvious point that he mentioned about the loss to local authorities of revenue from the charges that they can make, which go to the Land Registry. As there is a fairly well founded rumour that the Government are bent on eventual privatisation of the Land Registry, the Minister will not be at all surprised that the questioning on those aspects of the Bill will be fairly intense in Committee.

I turn to the last issue in the Bill—fracking—although there is not much to say about it in relation to the Bill, because there is not a great deal there. We appreciate that the consultation that the Government are carrying out on this does not conclude until August and we are quite content to wait to see the government proposals as a consequence of that consultation. However, it indicates what a rag bag of a Bill this is that government proposals about one of its more important features are scarcely before the House today.

I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on community electricity clauses, as I always do on energy matters. I also appreciated the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and his optimism about what could be done on this, which we share. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, exactly when he says that nearly everything in any Bill relating to energy seems to be dealt with by regulation. It looks, from the outline of the Bill, that what we will have to probe is the exact nature of the regulations that will give effect to what is intended. We obviously support the broad concept, and our questioning and probing in that area will be constructive.

The question of invasive and non-native species was raised first, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and several other noble Lords expressed their concern. We need legislation in this area. The Government have sought to do what they can in the past on these matters, but we are aware of the great threats that obtain. As a Minister, I was personally concerned with Japanese knotweed five years ago. I was informed by the scientific establishment, not only in the department but in government, that we had cracked it in terms of the science and that all it needed now was careful analysis of the process of implementation and restricted experimentation in a limited area. Here we are, five years on, and neither I nor my noble friend Lord Dubs can get a meeting with a responsible Minister. That may be because the responsible Minister does not have a great deal to say about the progress on Japanese knotweed.

Japanese knotweed is important because it affects land in a very invasive way and harms households. It is a transport issue, too, because it costs Network Rail a considerable sum each year to keep the railway track free of knotweed, which can do such damage. We also know of a number of other threats to our environment, and therefore I of course welcome these provisions in the Bill very warmly indeed. The Minister will no doubt appreciate that she will be questioned about a whole range of plants and species of which she knows precious little at present, I would guess, but about which she will no doubt be primed as we make progress through the Bill.

In so far as the Bill is about infrastructure and transport, it is about roads. Even when it refers to rail, it does so in terms of rail taking some responsibility for the monitoring of roads. However, we have very real doubts about the role of the Passengers’ Council and whether it provides an adequate forum for public response. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, the rail system is very different indeed from the road system, as is the nature of the customers on it.

The House will recognise that there are severe reservations about the Bill. The Bill purports to be about infrastructure, but that idea has been demolished by several contributions, in which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, played his full part by indicating that the Government are very far from having any sensible infrastructure policy at all. They are of course proud of the fact that they are continuing with HS2. They are also indicating that they may get around, eventually, to dealing with the A14, which drags on along its interminable path amid its failure to get adequate improvement. However, the idea that the Government have an infrastructure policy and that, if they have, this Bill is a central part of it is quite risible. All noble Lords who spoke in the debate expressed criticisms that show the inadequacy of the Bill in these terms.

That is why I hope the Minister will recognise that we will probe very hard on the Highways Agency and the role that it is to adopt. It is true that the chief executive of the Highways Agency is buoyant with optimism about the extent to which he will have extensive powers to pursue his clear objectives. Just where that fits in with the Government’s responsibility to Parliament, I am not quite sure. We regard the proposals in the Bill for the scrutiny of what the Highways Agency is intended to do, if it gets the role outlined in the Bill, and the processes there as wholly inadequate, and we will be pressing the Government very hard indeed on those issues.

The roads system in this country needs considerable attention but, as noble Lords have pointed out, the Bill is concerned with only 2% of roads. My fear is that the Bill will arrive at the other end with Members of Parliament not too far from a general election and facing pressing issues related to the inadequacy of the roads in their constituencies. Trunk and long-distance roads will be of less concern to the other House than what has happened with the failure to maintain and keep up our roads, particularly following the ravages of last winter, and the problems of potholes.

We are destined to participate in some very interesting exchanges in Committee. The Committee will have a great deal to discuss, which will all be done in a constructive spirit, because we realise that the Government intend to address issues that the nation wants addressed. The problem is that this Bill is a wholly inadequate vehicle.

19:27

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, this evening really has been a testament to the range of knowledge in this House. I thank all noble Lords, but give a special note of thanks to two who have not spoken in the debate, my noble friends Lady Verma and Lady Stowell, who are supporting me in taking the Bill through the House and whose support, both moral and in terms of knowledge, is frankly invaluable. I will try to respond to as many questions as I can, but there have been so many that I already know that failure is stamped upon me, and I will follow up in writing where I am unable to cover issues here on the Floor.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, opened the debate. I think he was grudgingly supportive of the Bill, but I have to say that some of his comments seemed to ignore the fact that he was part of a Government for 13 years who invested very little in infrastructure. To talk about lack of investment in new power generation, suddenly having found the light when the coalition Government are in place and seen the need for investment, was a little strange, I thought. I will not reiterate the very extensive investments that the coalition Government are making but, as I said earlier, there has been £100 billion for roads, railways, building affordable homes and boosting the internet, as well as a lot of private money going into areas such as power generation. I thought the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Jenkin of Roding, answered the question so well that I will just pray in aid their comments and add mine from the Queen’s Speech rather than continue with that point.

More generally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that we are taking on one of the largest infrastructure investment projects in a generation, as I have just described. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there are delivery mechanisms that are fit for purpose to deal with that. That is the theme that links the various parts of the Bill and by definition the range is broad.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked whether infrastructure was more than roads. My goodness, just looking at the Bill makes it very clear that it is. Of course, there are many other avenues of opportunity. We have talked extensively about our investment in rail, sustainable transport and a wide range of other necessary infrastructure.

I will say a word on procedure, if I may. It is difficult to go through this in detail without taking up too much time. We are very much looking forward to detailed scrutiny. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, just a moment ago, gave a very clear indication of wanting to go through the Bill in great detail in Committee, and we welcome that. We think that is a very important part of the role of this House.

I will provide some clarification for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It is our intent, subject to the usual channels—and I say this to those who have looked at Forthcoming Business—that further time will be allocated after the Summer Recess to ensure effective debate on all the clauses of the Bill. We recognise that that is important. I reassure noble Lords that, where important decisions have not yet been finalised, the House will be given clear guidance and information about our intentions in Committee. A number of people asked why the consultation will start in June or August. Obviously, the secondary legislation documents that are to be consulted on will be very important in informing the debate in Committee and the other stages in this House.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

Before my noble friend leaves the point of procedure, perhaps she shares my disappointment that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who brought up procedure, is not in his place to hear her remarks on the procedure of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer]

I hope that my noble friend will encourage him to read my comments.

Moving on to more substantive issues, we had actually very little discussion of shale gas. My noble friend Lord Teverson spoke about geothermal extraction. I think that is rather positive. There is clearly an appetite in this House to ensure that this is a successful project. I know that many people are waiting for the detail, and that is exactly right. I would encourage anyone with an interest in this area to look at the consultation that is under way until 15 August because they may wish to participate in it as well as use it to inform themselves of what may happen, since the Government will not be making their final decisions until that consultation is complete and its implications are understood. We do not want to prejudge.

My noble friend Lord Teverson asked for more information on geothermal. I suspect that he knows this area far better than I do, but I remind him that geothermal power projects are eligible for support through the renewables obligation, and that under the contracts for difference the department has set a final strike price for geothermal power of £145 per megawatt hour until 2016-17 and £140 per megawatt hour thereafter. Indeed, there are a lot of measures to exploit geothermal, of which I think everyone recognises the potential.

In the same vein, my noble friend Lord Purvis mentioned the Wood review. We recognise that the oil and gas industry in the UK is of national importance and will be a vital part of the energy mix. While investment levels in the UK continental shelf are rising and near-term prospects are strong, there are new challenges for exploration and production. The environment is, frankly, very different from the circumstances when production peaked approximately 15 years ago. We will be responding very shortly to the Wood review. Details of how this will be carried forward will be available in Committee—I think my noble friend might have thought it would be later but it will be in Committee.

On zero-carbon homes, my noble friend Lord Teverson constantly reminds us that as well as talking about the supply side for energy we must focus on the demand side. This part of the Bill is absolutely critical in this area, and we will see those clauses before the Summer Recess. We recognise, as I suspect all noble Lords did in their speeches, that making all homes zero-carbon “on site” is sometimes not physically feasible or cost-effective for housebuilders. There are technical limits. Of course, we will be exploring the whole issue of allowable solutions. My noble friend Lord Teverson said he was concerned that we were focusing on potential exemptions for small sites, but we must recognise that small housebuilders face a very different economic framework from that faced by the big housebuilders, lacking economies of scale. But it is an important industry throughout the UK and we rely on it heavily for housebuilding in this country, and we must always keep in mind that the industry needs to be successful.

On roads reform, there was a very wide range of questions. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw—and there may have been others—talked about the importance of ensuring that reforms to the Highways Agency were seen within the context of spending on local authority roads, particularly the maintenance of those roads. It is obviously a very important point. Your Lordships will know that the Government are investing more than £6 billion in this Parliament—£12 billion in the next—on highways maintenance for strategic and local roads, enough to resurface 80% of the national road network and fill 19 million potholes a year on local roads. I also want to make it clear that there are benefits from that integration between the strategic highways network and local roads that come from our proposals for changes to the Highways Agency. The licence agreement for the reformed Highways Agency will include a duty to co-operate that will foster and improve partnership working with local authorities.

The new company will be a traffic authority and have the same legal responsibilities to ensure that traffic runs smoothly on its own network and the local network. These changes will strengthen the interplay between local authorities and the Highways Agency.

[Lord Adonis]

The Minister just referred to the “new company”. Many noble Lords in the debate asked whether we are talking about a company or companies because the Bill says “companies”. Do I take it from what the Minister just said that it is the Government’s intention to set up just one highways company?

[Baroness Kramer]

Yes, it is the Government’s intention to set up just one company. It is standard template language in legislation, I understand, to create the option of further entities. It has no sinister meaning at all behind it. The intention is for a single company, but of course the lawyers always think about what-ifs in the most extraordinary way. I guess we did not really kick back against that but, yes, it is one company.

A number of your Lordships seemed to think that we might be looking at privatisation. Indeed, I was not sure whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was proposing that, but we are certainly not proposing it on this side. This will be a company with a single shareholder, the Secretary of State. Any change to that would require primary legislation, so there is no backdoor mechanism.

[Lord Adonis]

For the record, my Lords, I was not.

[Baroness Kramer]

A number of other noble Lords asked whether the body would go out and seek private finance. It could do so only with the authority and approval of the Secretary of State, so it is no different from the current situation of the Highways Agency. The Government do not anticipate that that is what it will do. Quite frankly, borrowing through government costs significantly less, and this is an on-books entity. That is not something that this is meant to facilitate, if that is helpful.

[Lord Skidelsky]

Does the Minister expect that the Government will in fact borrow for their trunk road programme?

[Baroness Kramer]

I am expecting that the Government will borrow to fund the SHC—I hesitate to use the words “in exactly the same way”, but they will have a commitment, if you like, to the funding stream as a result of the roads investment strategy. They will fund the SHC in the same way as they would in effect have funded the Highways Agency. It is not a change. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, would like to see the entity going out directly to the bond markets itself, but that is not anticipated; it could do so, but only with the approval of the Secretary of State.

[Lord Skidelsky]

But it is anticipated that the Government will fund it by their own borrowing; is that right?

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord is talking to someone who does not understand quite how the government books work, but I do not recognise government borrowing being segregated into line items. However, I will follow up on that and write to the noble Lord before I tangle us in something that I have not explored in such detail. If the noble Lord is looking for imputed returns, we can discuss all that later.

The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Judd, raised the issue of Passenger Focus as a consumer watchdog. It strikes me as a superb representative of the road user. One of your Lordships suggested that the AA or other existing bodies act as a voice for the road user, but they tend to act as a voice for a limited number of views, typically those of car drivers. There are many other road users, and it is important that a much broader sweep, including cyclists, get represented. Using Passenger Focus, with its consumer skills, strikes me as a very important mechanism.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others also asked whether the Office of Rail Regulation was an appropriate body. It will act as a monitor, not as a regulator; that is an important distinction. The logic follows these lines. The SHC does not require an economic regulator in the way that Network Rail does. It is not dealing with track access charges and the users of the system are not paying in the way that passengers do, so there is really no role for an economic regulator here. There is not a number of TOCs all in competition with each other and with a complex relationship with Network Rail. It will advise the Secretary of State, who will then be able to enforce. It will monitor the operations of the new company.

[Lord Berkeley]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right in what she says. On the other hand, one of the roles of the rail regulator is to regulate the efficiency and costs of Network Rail. Would it not be a good idea to have some independent monitoring of this new company’s costs in the same way?

[Baroness Kramer]

The monitoring will indeed be there. That is crucial because of the way in which the SHC is being constructed.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked: where on earth do you get those savings from? It is covered in detail in the impact assessment and business case published by DfT on 6 June. It is important to understand that certainty of funding, which will come out of the road investment strategy, combined with the arm’s-length relationship, gives us a structure which is similar enough to the structure which has worked effectively in the rail industry. For example, the Government have committed £24 billion to road investment until 2021. Far more detail on all of this will come out of the road investment strategy.

The road investment strategy is set up in such a way that once established, if a future Secretary of State wants to change it, he or she obviously could—we cannot bind a future Parliament—but it would have to be done transparently, publicly and with consultation. Such pressures are an inhibitor which provides enough satisfaction to the industry to understand that it can look with reasonable certainty over the long term for the funding to be available. That leads to efficiency. We expect the SHC to approach asset management in a different way because it has such clear strategy and certainty of funding. It will also be set up as a company, with the roles that companies have, with its directors and chief executive. The sole shareholder will be the Secretary of State. I think that it will achieve its purpose. One could go over the top and try to reinforce that, but the question is: is that sufficient for the purpose to be achieved? If it is, that is the point at which we should stop.

Yes, the SHC will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so there should be no concern on the issue. I have addressed the issue of multiple companies. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer mentioned—I am told that I have only two minutes left. Is that seriously true? If I have only two minutes left, I shall do one thing which is terribly important. I switch completely to address the issue that has been floating through the media and mentioned today: concern that land transfers could affect the Forestry Commission and the national parks. I addressed that issue briefly at the very beginning of my speech. I am looking hard to find the comments; if anyone can hand them to me I will love them for ever.

[Lord Adonis]

While the noble Baroness wrestles with her papers, I invite her to respond to another big concern raised in the debate, which is that there were discussions in government about privatising the Land Registry. Are there are indeed such discussions?

[Baroness Kramer]

I can tell the noble Lord only that there will be no such clauses in this Bill. I can provide that absolute clarity.

[Lord Adonis]

Are there any discussions about privatisation of the Land Registry at a later date?

[Baroness Kramer]

There will be a response to the consultation, but it is not the intention of the Government to provide for that in the Bill or, as far as I know, in any future legislation.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

If it is not the intention to seek privatisation by this mechanism, can the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to seek it in any other legislative arrangement?

[Baroness Kramer]

I certainly have no knowledge of any other intentions. As I said, there will be a proper response to the consultation. That may be helpful in clarifying any remaining questions for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

I confirm that the Government are committed to England’s public forest estate and national parks remaining secure in public ownership for the people who enjoy them and the businesses that depend on them. The measure that we discussed for the HCA is about transferring surplus land from government agencies. The public forest estate and our national parks are in use; they are therefore not surplus and none will therefore be transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency. This measure does not apply to them.

[Lord Judd]

I am very grateful to the Minister for taking up the issue of national parks, but I point out that although she has covered one important aspect, she has not covered the aspect of the responsibility of government and government departments to respect and enhance the purposes for which the parks exist.

[Baroness Kramer]

I think at this stage I have to say that I will write to respond to questions. I apologise that I have used slightly more than the 20 minutes I am allowed but I very much appreciate the debate that has taken place.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

19:50

Moved by

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

That this House takes note of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move this Motion. I should say that I have had notice from a number of colleagues about it. I know that there is concern in all parts of the House about the implications of universal credit and, because of the shortness of notice given for this debate—I was offered the opportunity for it to be this evening only 48 hours ago—many colleagues have indicated to me that they would have been here had they had more notice. In that regard, I am particularly pleased that the Minister himself has seen fit to come to answer the debate, which is typical of him and his well known interest in this important area of public policy. I hope that the debate will not stretch for too long but it is important to make the best use of the next few minutes, if we can.

I am of course founding this Take Note debate on the transitional provisions regulations and if I am founding it on any part of the documents at all, it is on paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum. As colleagues will know, paragraph 4.3 refers to “widening the availability” of universal credit and says that,

“as announced in Parliament on 5th December 2013, the introduction of the 2014 Regulations is part of the Department’s changing approach to how legislation relating to the rollout of UC is structured”.

I hope to be able to use that to describe some of the wider ramifications that sit alongside the content of these regulations.

I also start by referring to the always excellent work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In paragraph 20 of its first report, it draws attention to the changes that the technical regulations bring and, in particular, expresses surprise that the regulations were,

“accompanied by the original cost/benefit analysis”,

of the impact assessment from 2012. That is a well founded question because things have changed so much over the past two years, so the department is not safe simply to rest its case on the impact assessment made all those months ago.

The other two points that the committee made which are salient to this evening’s discussion are, first, the fact that by now,

“Universal Credit has been made more flexible and can be ‘managed’ if problems arise in a particular area”,

and that those changes can now be “made by Commencement Orders”. Commencement orders are fine but they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so I would be a bit nervous if such orders started to be used willy-nilly for claims being allowed in areas or to special cohorts of claimants without that scrutiny. Finally, the report says that the regulations,

“include provision to allow the Secretary of State discretion … to stop taking Universal Credit claims in … geographic areas”.

As the regulations suggest in paragraph 4.3 of the memorandum, that is a change to previous provision.

So the first part of my case is that on the surface these regulations are what we expected and contain no other surprises, since we always understood that the 2014 regulations would replace the 2013 regulations, and so far so good: I am perfectly comfortable about that. However, when you look at the position outside and the context in which these regulations are being introduced you discover huge and increasing uncertainty about the programme, which is no surprise to anybody who has been following the debate. Against the background of the regulations and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, I want to spend a little time on that mounting uncertainty this evening under four different headings.

First, on case load, I would have been surprised to be told in 2012, when the Minister took the primary legislation through in the Welfare Reform Act, that in 2014 the active case load would amount to 5,610 straightforward cases—I have the statistics here that were published on 11 June 2014. More than six in 10 of the 5,610 cases in that case load on 31 March 2014 were younger people under the age of 25. They are mainly single and are what is known in the trade as straightforward cases. They could not be more straightforward and it could not be a much smaller number. I remind the House that we are talking about a target case load by 2017 of 7.7 million households. At the current rate of progress, there are questions—I put it no higher than that—about how we get from where we are now to where we want to be in 2017.

I think that only three Jobcentre Plus areas are handling more than 1,000 cases each at the moment: Oldham, Wigan and Warrington. I know that the Government are rolling out the case load from time to time and there are, I think, up to 10 or more places where the new pathfinders are in operation. However, as far as it is conceivably possible, what I would like is a year-by-year estimate of the new rollout period in terms of case load because the transitional period that we are now facing in these regulations is much longer than I anticipated. Other people may have different ideas but if you had said to me in 2012, when the primary legislation was passed, that the transitional period would be as long as it looks it will be, I would have found that difficult to believe.

My second point is about how a longer transition period will impact on claimants. There is a very obvious case that the sooner people get access to the smoothing effects and the work incentive effects of universal credit, the better it will be for them. Day by day, for the people who do not have access to these provisions, making work pay and all the rest of it gets much harder. More acutely than that, in these regulations there is notification that employment and support allowance claimants, in particular, may be facing a delay even beyond 2017. I have read press reports about this. A report in the Guardian on 24 May suggested that 700,000 employment and support allowance cases could be affected. I understand why: it is because they have been transported off incapacity benefit. However, if we are really starting to talk now about 2018 to get this job done, we are in territory that begins to call into question the programme rollout as it stands. I have even seen knowledgeable IT experts make the case that this rollout may take anything between five and 15 years—from now. These are serious people who know about major projects.

We really have to look at some of the consequences of a longer transition period. For example, the local authority costs for continuing housing benefit administration would not have been anticipated and will not be in their plans. What steps are we taking to look out for that and make proper plans? Finally, on claimants, there is the local support services framework. At an earlier stage, the Government themselves said, rightly, that the LSSF is almost as important as universal credit itself. I agree with that, but if there is a much longer transition period, what is happening to finance that? The delays in the transitional phase are causing uncertainty in local authority and local support service framework circles.

My next point is about value for money. I note with interest that it is a while since the National Audit Office report was published. The Minister will know that my spies are everywhere. Actually, some of my spies may be double agents; I think that the department has found out whom I have been talking to and turned them against me, which, if true, is a dastardly act. I am being facetious, of course. However, I make the point that if there is a continuing NAO interest in this programme rollout, it may well be gearing itself up for a second investigation. If that is the case, I think it will indicate that the NAO is uncertain about the future of the project, and nothing could underline that more clearly.

20:00

I have also seen some costs. I do not believe everything that I read in the press because I am not that stupid, but some people are now estimating that, when all is said and done, this programme might cost not £2.5 billion but £12.5 billion by the time we are finished. I find that very difficult to believe, and if the Minister could give us an assurance on that it would be very helpful. We have certainly seen a £40 million write-off; that is dead money and we know about it. In the scheme of things, with a programme this size, the department may say, “Well, that always happens in programmes of this kind”, but £40 million is a huge amount of money. There is also a £90 million investment that has only a five-year life left in it now because of the changes to the IT system, so that is £40 million and £90 million that has been expended for not as much value as we would have liked, and that is an ongoing concern.

I want to talk about the obvious underlying core uncertainty concerning the ICT provision. The NAO and Major Projects Authority reports have, prima facie, some very frightening figures. More than anything else, I would really like, if the Minister is able to explain it this evening, to understand why we have abandoned agile computing. This whole programme was sold to us by the department on the basis that it would be done differently. This is not the first time that I have heard that about an ICT programme; I remember it being said about the Child Support Agency as well, but you live and learn—or maybe you do not—and life moves on. I do not understand why the clever and interesting project work that was done by the Warrington team on agile computing has now been changed to what is known in the trade as end-state systems, which I think means web-based applications. That is technically a complete change of direction in ICT provision, as far as I understand it. I also understand that we have spent some money on keeping agile computing going so that there is a twin-track approach. This is all very reminiscent of the CSA, where two systems ran in tandem. I now subscribe to Computer Weekly because that magazine definitely has a serious mole in the department. My jaw drops when I read some of the stories that it brings forward. I do not know how many of them are absolutely accurate but the magazine certainly knows enough to be concerned, and its stories are contributing to the uncertainty of which I speak.

The Major Projects Authority has reset the risk assessment for universal credit. I do not know what “reset” means. When I was a provincial solicitor about 40 years ago in Jedburgh sheriff court, I used to defend people for “theft and reset”. I do not know what it means in terms of risk analysis but it is certainly not red, amber or green. Will the Minister enlighten us about exactly what the consequences of “reset” are? The head of the MPA, John Manzoni, when he was asked why he had reset the risk, was clear that this was a ministerial decision and nothing to do with him, which increases my worries. It would be helpful if we could get some departmental explanation from the Minister officially on the record in this debate. Obviously we are waiting with interest to see what the Government’s response is to the Select Committee report that was published in April, because the committee did some extremely sensible work and raised sensible questions that further increased the uncertainty, certainly in my mind.

I acknowledge the efforts that the Minister personally has put into all this, and I acknowledge the value of some of the briefings that the department arranges for Members of this House on all sides; they are extremely valuable. I hope he agrees with me, though, that they are no substitute for making clear and public exactly what the Government are trying to do and what is true and what is not, in order to try to contain the uncertainty in the best way that we can. As he knows, I have always been in favour of this programme and I continue to be, but I say to him honestly that the idea of continuing prudently and cautiously and getting it right gets a bit stretched if we start looking beyond 2017. If we are not careful, confidence in the whole programme could be dissipated if we do not deal with this honestly and openly.

The Minister should go back to the Secretary of State and point out how successful the Transport Secretary has been over HS2. The Transport Secretary was on the record right from the beginning acknowledging the difficulties, and I think that he has had a better hearing, and dealt with the issue better, than if he had dissembled, looked for excuses and said that everything would be all right on the night. I think the House deserves the unvarnished truth.

Maybe it is a slight abuse of procedure to seek an explanation of this kind from the Minister today, as statutory instruments of this kind do not really admit of general debate. However, if the Minister can find some way of reassuring the House that in the coming months if not years, as these programme rollout problems unfold, he will ensure that he comes to the House and explains what is going on, what it is necessary to put right and what the Government are doing about it, he will find himself getting more support from the House than he otherwise would. I hope he will think about that carefully, and I hope I have not spoilt his evening too much by getting him here at such short notice. This is an important subject and I am looking forward to hearing what he and other colleagues have to say in the rest of the debate. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for that speech and indeed for this opportunity to question the Government on the progress of universal credit. I do not think that he need worry too much about whether he strayed from the regulations. The points that he made were precisely the areas that I too had zoned in on from the regulations, so it is certainly my view that his questions are within the spirit, and clearly the content, of tonight’s business.

Before I turn to the content, I want to ask the Minister a process question. Could he explain to the House what the rush was for the consideration of this Motion? I saw these regulations appear on the green sheet certainly no more than two or three sitting days ago, and it was only yesterday that it was confirmed that this debate would take place tonight. There may have been other noble Lords with an interest in this subject—there were certainly plenty of us during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act—who wanted to participate in the debate.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

I have to leap to the defence of the Minister. This is my fault: I tabled the debate and was offered a slot, and the Government were very generous in giving me a slot on the Floor so I took it early. That is entirely my fault and was nothing to do with the Government or the Chief Whip.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention and for leaping to defend the honour of the Minister. The only point that I make is that it may not be widely understood outside the House that no one consults, for example, the Opposition to see whether a spokesperson is available. This gave me 24 hours to get these regulations out, read them and understand what they were about in order to be able to hold the Minister to account. The process should allow for that. I was not suggesting any conspiracy on the Minister’s part—I know that these matters are far above his pay grade and mine by some considerable distance—but I simply place that point on the record. I think that we would get better debates if we all had a bit more notice when things of this complexity were coming forward. It is not as though universal credit is in a rush. It is not about to be rolled out across the country next week or next month.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised the question of the speed of transition. I think he was rather generous to the Secretary of State. On 1 November 2011 Iain Duncan Smith promised that 1 million people would be claiming universal credit by April 2014. So how does it look now? The noble Lord pointed out that the case load now, far from being 1 million, is 5,610, and the signs are not promising. In January this year, 1,010 people started claiming universal credit, in February it was 630 people and in March it was 560 people. Only 6,550 people have claimed anything at all since the scheme began. That is an enormous difference.

The Secretary of State has insisted repeatedly that universal credit would meet its deadlines of first national rollout from October 2013 and final replacement of housing benefit, child and working tax credits, income support and non-contributory JSA and ESA by 2017. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, on this; I would not bet the DWP pension pot on that deadline being met at the moment.

The noble Lord asked a question about what “reset” means. He is right not to believe everything he reads in the papers, but the papers were pretty much of the same view that the reason the project had to be reset was that it had previously had an amber/red rating from the Major Projects Authority and was probably about to get a red rating, so in order not to get a red rating it was reset so that it did not get any rating at all. I very much hope that that is scurrilous suspicion on the part of the media and that the Minister can correct it and explain the process to us.

However, it is not the first time. Whenever criticisms are made of the project, the department comes back and Ministers say that those criticisms are not fair because they do not take account of changes that have recently been made. There comes a stage when, if problems keep arising and changes are made, it is legitimate to say: how can you persuade people outside, never mind the House, that the department has learnt enough from previous mistakes to have any confidence in the next level of management development that has been put forward? I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance on that front.

Recently, there have been even more worrying reports about problems in the pilot universal credit areas with claims that administrative errors and computer glitches had led to increases in personal debt, rent arrears and evictions.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised the question of value for money. In four years, more than £600 million has been spent and, as he pointed out, the Government admit that £40 million has been totally wasted and a further £90 million “written down” because the IT bought was not fit for purpose. That is a lot of money for 5,610 people to be claiming universal credit. That context means that the Minister will understand why there is nervousness about the fact that these regulations seem to give the Government considerable discretion in deciding how the rollout should take place in future.

First, as the noble Lord pointed out, unlike the 2013 transitional regulations, these regulations give that discretion to the Government. They no longer contain proposals for categories of people to be brought on to universal credit. Rather, “gateway conditions” for universal credit claimants will in future be spelt out in commencement orders which, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments points out, are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Secondly, the regulations permit the Secretary of State to stop taking universal credit claims altogether either for certain categories of people or in certain parts of the country. That is a really significant shift in powers from Parliament scrutinising or passing regulations to the Secretary of State. Will the Minister give us some indication of whether there is any limitation to those powers? Could he, for example, decide not to include several benefits? Could he decide not to do Wales? Could he decide not to do the north of England? Is there any limitation to that discretion? If so, what does that mean for our understanding of what the transition timetable will be, a point pressed very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood?

The questions I would like to ask the Minister are these. First, why are these changes necessary? What was wrong with things that were done previously when regulation was used? What is necessary? What is it about the process and, more importantly, what do the Government think the process is going to look like in future that means they need these powers?

Secondly, how will Parliament be enabled to scrutinise the decisions taken by the Secretary of State to control who is entitled to universal credit? The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, flagged up one of the points made in defence of universal credit, which is that it will give various benefits to categories of claimant. If that is the case—certainly the Government have used that defence in explaining why they had to cut existing benefits—that is a considerable power. How can Parliament hold Ministers to account for deciding who is and is not entitled to access a system created by Parliament with an expectation that it would by now have been experienced by 1 million people and would be entirely rolled out by 2017? That is a very serious constitutional question.

20:15

Thirdly, I ask the Minister for a timetable, certainly for the rollout of universal credit, as pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. More immediately, could he give us a timetable for when we will get the outstanding details we are waiting for on universal credit? For example, when will we get more information about exactly how universal credit will apply to the self-employed? There are many similar outstanding points.

Finally will the Minister commit today to increasing transparency around the universal credit process? As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, signalled, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said:

“The Committee was surprised to see this instrument accompanied by the original cost/benefit analysis from 2012, despite the well-publicised changes to the programme”.

I have to confess that I was less surprised. There has been a pattern of secrecy throughout the universal credit process, with Ministers insisting everything was fine when everybody knew it was not fine, and not just the moles who are clearly well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. Even now the Government are still resisting the release of key documents about the implementation of universal credit, despite rulings from the information tribunal that there was a “strong public interest” in their publication.

As well as being wrong in principle, this is a serious tactical error. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, indicated that there was support across the House for the principles of universal credit when the then Welfare Reform Bill was going through it, but there must be a serious risk that that good will has been eaten away and is being eroded. If Ministers want universal credit to succeed, especially given the increasingly lengthy timetable, they should be adopting a policy of bipartisanship—perhaps tripartisanship—and transparency. After all, millions of our poorest citizens need to know the system that they are going to depend on to help feed their kids, support them in their disability or enable them to work is safe and secure. There could be at least one, if not two, changes of Parliament before this is finally rolled out. I know the Minister to be very committed to this programme and to the changes he wants to see it create in the lives of those citizens who are dependent on benefits, but if the Government as a whole are invested in its long-term success, surely the most sensible thing to do is to try to engage with other parties to put information out there and to recognise that one of the reasons there is so much speculation in the media is that there is an information vacuum.

Finally, when the Bill was going through the Minister very kindly gave seminars for Members of the House from different sides explaining what was happening and helping us to understand the detail about implementation, or planned implementation, as well as the policy that would be considered by the House. Given that so much has changed, will he consider offering some updates to those Members of the House who are interested, particularly since they could not be here tonight, so that we can keep in touch with what is going on? That might lead to less rather than more speculation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, I feel a bit castigated by the two speakers, who clearly feel that more communication is in order. I know that in the past I committed to keep noble Lords in touch. I take the point on that. I will look at the best way of communicating in the next period. Often I invite people along and nobody comes. I will try to find a time and an enthusiasm for noble Lords to come, because colleagues in this House have been very supportive of universal credit, which I acknowledge and appreciate. The atmosphere in this House when we discuss this programme is markedly different from that in the other place. I appreciate that for obvious reasons.

Let me talk about the timetable as it stands at the moment. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said that it was not about to be rolled out across the country any time soon, I can tell her that we are about to roll out expansion right across the north-west pretty soon. As noble Lords know, “soon” is a technical expression in our discussions. That represents 90 jobcentres: one in eight of the jobcentres in Britain will come in as we roll it out. That will be followed by couples, going out this summer, which in turn will be followed by families later in the year. New claims in those areas will go automatically, subject to their passing the gateway rules. There should be no great complexity. There is a slightly ugly expression that we have used before: the “lobster pot”. In practice, when people go into universal credit, they will stay in universal credit even if their circumstances change and it becomes more complicated. We now have a full apparat—a full structure—for running universal credit and we can do that.

We then have universal credit rolling out across the country during 2016. In that period, all new benefit claims will be for universal credit. Our plan is for the majority of existing claimants to move on to universal credit in 2016-17. My noble friend Lord Kirkwood was quite right when he drew attention to the 700,000 ESA claimants who have just had a transition from IB to ESA. We do not feel that there is necessarily a huge hurry for them. However, I can tell the noble Lord that some of his wilder, 12-year plans are certainly not in our plans. Clearly, we will be able to give more information as we develop and look at our enhanced IT programme.

By definition, there has been a series of quite aggressive questions that I am happy to answer. Before I go into detail, however, I will make the point that we are safely and steadily getting this new benefit out to the country. We are doing so in 10 jobcentres now and are about to expand the scheme quite a lot. We have 99% of employers on the real-time information system, so we are getting those flows and making that connection. There is one category of people of whom 90% make their claims online. We have now taken one element of the universal credit infrastructure, the claimant commitment, and deployed it right through the country. That is a big thing: it implies training more than 23,000 of our staff. It means that 600,000 people have signed it. We have been putting in computers and wi-fi along with the infrastructure to bring about this substantial change.

It seems to be working. Noble Lords will remember some initial figures showing that people felt that the financial incentive was better under universal credit. They looked for work for longer and applied for more jobs. Of this group, which we are watching carefully, the majority—three-quarters—were comfortable with the monthly payments, which I know has been of great concern to this House. We watch that, not least because whenever this House tell us to watch something, we do so.

The nature of the regulations represents a slight change to the way in which the commencement orders work, and it is important for me to explain this precisely. Previously, we had only the gateway conditions in the regulations. When we rolled out geographically, we did so by commencement orders. However, we are now mixing in new types of people at different times. Imagine the process: we are taking a new group, which must be small in size for safety, and testing it carefully. We take out that small group and take it through the gateway while doing a geographical expansion. You have to take those two decisions in tandem. That allows us to do this safely and steadily. That is the only reason that we are doing it.

To pick up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, because we are doing it in that way we can deal with unexpected circumstances. For instance, when we open up four jobcentres to a new type of claimant and find that we have a problem—there are lots of things you find out and sort out as you go through—we can slow down if we have to and sort it out before we have done a massive amount.

I have given a commitment to the Social Security Advisory Committee—SSAC—that whenever we make an order that changes the gateway conditions for claiming universal credit, we will write to the committee explaining the changes that we are making. There is a process going on there for just the reasons about which noble Lords are concerned. Making arbitrary changes is absolutely not the purpose.

My noble friend Lord Kirkwood picked up on one of the points mentioned in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about impact assessments. Clearly, impact assessments are done when there is major legislation or very significant changes. There have been some changes to universal credit over the years. We have been pretty open about their individual effects; they have been on the record. However, there is nothing that justifies the major exercise of an impact assessment.

On transparency with the committee, we have invited committee members to our nearest live site, which is in Hammersmith. They have accepted, and we are looking for a date for that. We are trying to be as open as possible.

As my noble friend Lord Kirkwood said, I view the local support service framework as being as important as universal credit; indeed, this House is responsible for the local support service framework. That is because it was impressed upon me very vigorously that the concern with universal credit was what we are going to do for the vulnerable. That was the genesis of something which, as all noble Lords know, was not in our minds when we started. We have built quite an intensive process, starting with local authorities but with lots of other partners such as housing associations in particular and other third-sector bodies, to build a delivery model.

We have one in our four initial sites, which have a local support service framework, and we will test to get a definitive version of that. That will be published in the autumn next year, and we are planning to do another series of very specific pilots. There is a lot of enthusiasm around the country to take part in that—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Kirkwood’s moles are telling him all about that process. I suspect that that is one of the reasons his moles have become much more enthusiastic about the process they are engaged in, because we are gripping this.

20:30

One can forget this—I am being pretty dry in this response—but one of the things we are trying to do is to change people’s lives with universal credit. The present system has effectively parked people and has not wanted to do much with them to get them to be able to function more effectively. As I was preparing for this debate—I did not have much more time than the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock; I might have felt a little like her about the timing, but I could not possibly say that—I thought it was worth trying to get some colour and was struck by a quote from one of our own universal credit work coaches, Nicola Rous in Hammersmith. She talked about how she got a vulnerable client in—a claimant called Robert, who needed help managing his finances—and what she did about his situation. Let me quote her.

“Handling a monthly budget can be daunting for someone who’s never had to take direct responsibility for their personal budgeting before. When a lump sum of money lands in your bank account it can be tempting to go out and spend it all at once. But I’ve worked closely with Robert to help him plan his spending and make sure his money lasts the month, that his bills get paid and that he has enough left over to spend on groceries … One of the big changes for Robert has been paying his rent directly to his landlord. I was able to help him set up a direct debit to make sure he keeps on top of this and keeps a roof over his head … We also offer all our claimants group or one-to-one sessions run by the Citizens Advice Bureau on money management which really helps give them budgeting confidence”.

That is a transformation of the relationship and the level of support. She concludes:

“I couldn’t imagine going back to my old adviser role. Some of the changes we’ve made are only small but they make the world of difference. Aside from the career development opportunity that being Work Coach offers, I can genuinely say I also get a huge amount of satisfaction from my job”.

That is the kind of change this can have, and it shows the change in approach. Noble Lords can imagine, with each person we move into independence, the benefit for the country socially, economically and even, I suspect, on the happiness index.

The point on certainty of spend made by my noble friend is clearly of great importance, and we are spending a lot of attention on our relationship with local authorities. We have already notified them of their 2014-15 housing benefit allocation and we aim to inform local authorities of their 2015-16 allocation in plenty of time so that the planning is sorted.

We have had the discussion on the programme and the spend. That was slightly more mature in this House. We all know that, when you have a £2.5 billion programme with a high IT content, there are elements that you write that you do not need. In the private sector that can be a third of a programme. Clearly, any write-off is always deeply regrettable, but one has to put those things into a context. We remain within our budget of £2.5 billion—not £12 billion—and we are looking at an overall net benefit of £35 billion from this programme. The NAO has said that it is taking a regular interest in the programme; we will continue and will see more reports on it from the NAO.

However, as regards the way in which we are doing it, it is somewhat misleading to think of this as a twin-track system, because we have a single plan for universal credit. We are finding what works through the rollout we have; it may be small, but you do not need huge numbers to find out what works. It is important that we do this testing. At the heart of the programme is what we call the “test and learn” process, in which we take what is happening and assess and measure it against other things, aiming to find out how it works. That informs what we call the end-state build, which is thoroughly under way and is agile. The first Warrington programme was trying to be agile, which I think is the best way; this end-state solution—the fully digital one, the interactive digital one—is being done on an agile basis.

What does reset mean? What happened, as noble Lords will remember, is that Ministers, the Secretary of State in particular, took a decision that the programme was not going properly and took a view to stop it and reorganise it—reset it. It is not a new category; it is a description of a process. If one is in charge of a programme, rather than blundering on with it regardless, I would hope noble Lords would agree that it is the job of the Ministers in charge to take that kind of decision, work out how to rebase it—reset it—and make sure it is done safely and securely, which is what we are aiming to do. That is everything that we are doing.

I hope we are as transparent as we can be. It is a huge programme. It has very many ramifications. It is changing all the time every day that you are working on it. We aim to communicate in good time and at the appropriate time. We have very significant scrutiny. We have the NAO, the PAC and the Select Committee—I certainly do not feel underexamined on this programme. We aim to release information regularly, including statistics. I pick up the concern in this House and I will just have a look at having a programme for this House, just to get everyone back up to speed so that they know exactly what it is. Noble Lords spend a lot of energy on the primary legislation and then it all kind of goes quiet and one just wants to know what is happening with the key issues. I absolutely hear that and will do something about it.

Meanwhile, I thank my noble friend for giving me the chance at short notice, which the two Front-Benchers here feel very bitter about—but there we are; that is the legislative process. I thank the noble Lord very much.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 8.40 pm.