House of Commons

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Thursday 26 June 2014

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What assessment his Department has made of the main causes of insecurity in the workplace.

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

Employees’ views on job security are related to their individual circumstances and underlying economic conditions. Unsurprisingly, insecurity rose in the recession, but the fall in unemployment from 7.9% when we came into office in May 2010 to 6.6% in April 2014 and the creation of 700,000 permanent employee jobs since 2012 will almost certainly have reduced it.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The national minimum wage gives people at work security and a statutory minimum, ensuring decent wages. In January, the Chancellor advocated a £7 minimum. Was that not just empty rhetoric, given that no action has occurred since? Why are Ministers refusing to back Labour’s living wage plans?

[Vince Cable]

Before I reply directly to the supplementary question, may I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), who comes to the end of her admirable period in office at the end of this week as her colleague returns from maternity leave?

The Chancellor was not advocating a £7 minimum wage; he was explaining the simple arithmetic of what would happen if a real minimum wage were restored. The hon. Gentleman will well know that measures will be coming before the House to introduce much more effective enforcement action on the minimum wage. We should concentrate on strengthening the minimum wage, rather than pursuing the living wage as a mandatory option, about which there is confusion among Opposition Members.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any employer found not to be complying with the national minimum wage legislation will be prosecuted, and that any employer seeking to use zero-hours contracts to get around the national minimum wage legislation will therefore be prosecuted? If employers seek to exclude people on zero-hours contracts from being able to take work with any other employer, cannot those contracts be declared void as being contrary to public policy?

[Vince Cable]

On the latter point, we shall discuss in the forthcoming legislation how enforcement action might be taken in respect of exclusivity contracts. The answer to the first part of the question is yes, indeed: if the minimum wage legislation has been breached, action is taken, initially by retrieving the sums involved and by naming and shaming, and under the forthcoming legislation it will be by very significant penalties.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s approach to zero-hours contracts has to tread the difficult line between supporting the vast majority of employees who want to continue with those contracts, and limiting the use of such contracts where they are neither necessary nor appropriate?

[Vince Cable]

My colleague is right that this is a difficult line to tread, which is why we must base our policy on evidence and not on dogma. The evidence very clearly shows that a large number of people do appreciate and see value in the current arrangements but that there is also abuse, which needs to be dealt with.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the Office for National Statistics report on zero-hours contracts, published on 30 April 2014.

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

The ONS report was a helpful addition to the debate on zero-hours contracts, alongside the Department’s call for evidence and final consultation. Our policy is that although zero-hours contracts benefit many employers and employees, there is a need to address abuse.

[Mrs Moon]

The ONS study showed that 1.4 million workers were on zero-hours contracts. Those workers are unable to access rented property, because they cannot prove a work record, or mobile phone contracts and hire purchase contracts. What work has the Department undertaken also to identify the status of the 1.3 million people whose jobs were not examined as part of the ONS study? Do we not need to find out more about the people on zero-hours contracts rather than staying where we are?

[Vince Cable]

I thank the hon. Lady for her close interest in this matter and for trying to build up the evidence base. There is some confusion here, because the 1.4 million figure relates to the number of contracts, and individual workers may have several contracts; the best number we have from the ONS for the number of workers involved is 583,000, which represents about 2% of the total labour force.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that in today’s modern workplace many employees find zero-hours contracts very attractive because of the freedom they give them to combine different jobs, to work from home and be available to work, or to work and study at the same time?

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend rightly says that certain groups of workers find these contracts advantageous, the main ones being workers who have passed retirement age and wish to do optional, flexible work, and students, for whom the lack of an obligation to turn up at a fixed time for a fixed period is compatible with their studies.

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

Will the Secretary of State clear up the confusion he created during the last debate on this issue in the Chamber and confirm that workers on jobseeker’s allowance who turn down a zero-hours contract job will not face sanctions?

[Vince Cable]

They will not face sanctions. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

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

Employers are trying to steer a course between being flexible and skirting around their legal obligations, but there is concern about the zero-hours contracts for care workers, on whom we are becoming increasingly dependent. Will the Secretary of State’s Department take a careful look at that industry with a view to giving it further guidance if required?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, indeed. We are already doing that, and I am discussing the matter with the Minister with responsibility for care. The problem with domiciliary care is that there is almost certainly an avoidance by companies to pay the minimum wage, and that overlaps with the problem of zero-hours contracts. We recognise that there are some very specific problems for workers in that sector.

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

3. What contribution the regional growth fund has made to rebalancing the economy across regions.

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

Some £765 million of regional growth fund support has been paid to companies throughout England, which has leveraged £1.8 billion of private money. This combined investment of £2.5 billion in areas that need private sector growth has already delivered or safeguarded 97,000 jobs. Round 6 was launched last week and I encourage hon. Members to support companies in their constituencies in applying for funding.

[Diana Johnson]

In paying tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), perhaps the Secretary of State could put in a good word for her to get another job—there are so few Liberal Democrat women Ministers in the coalition Government.

Humber local enterprise partnership has been among the best in showing that it needs to go further than Ministers are with Lord Heseltine’s agenda on devolved funding, distributing £30 million of round 3 RGF funding to more than 80 companies, mainly small and medium-size enterprises. The funding ends in March 2015, and the fact that future rounds will be open only to larger businesses and universities with a minimum bid of £1 million will exclude many SMEs that are vital to the future of Hull. Will Ministers look again at this matter?

[Vince Cable]

On the hon. Lady’s first point about women in senior roles in Government—of course I want to add again compliments to my colleague—she may have noticed that the last of the FTSE companies that did not have a woman on the board, Glencore, has listened to our clear advice that it should proceed, and Mr Glasenberg appointed a woman director this morning. On the £30 million, which is of course the local fund that was hitherto administered through the local enterprise partnership but will come under the local growth fund when it is available from 2015-16, the local enterprise partnership will have discretion over how to use the funding available to it. I am sure that it will, as before, continue to support development in Hull.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

For Kettering’s sustainable urban extension to be sustainable, the Department for Transport says that a new junction on the A14 called junction 10A is required at a cost of £39 million. That is supported by both the Northamptonshire LEP and the South-East Midlands LEP. Given that the junction could release economic activity worth up to £1 billion under the Treasury green book rules, will the Secretary of State look favourably at this bid from Kettering for this new road junction?

[Vince Cable]

That is an issue that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), the Department for Transport and I will have to examine. As I understand it, under the arrangements that will prevail in 2015, this is very much a matter for the two LEPs involved to exercise their priorities.

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

Some really good stuff has happened under the regional growth fund, and I am glad to see the next round, but it is still not enough. We are still not getting borrowing for start-ups. New entrepreneurs are not being encouraged enough, and we are not using crowdfunding and crowdsourcing enough. What will the Secretary of State do to increase the number of young entrepreneurs who have access to capital so that they can make a difference?

[Vince Cable]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive remarks at the beginning. On funding, he will be pleased to know that under the StartUp loan scheme, we now have 13,000 loans that have been disbursed. They operate through the Business Bank, which is also funding crowdfunding, and it is operating on a significant scale and accelerating fast.

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

4. What steps he is taking to strengthen vocational training.

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

We are creating a system of vocational training to enable everyone to achieve their potential. We are on track to deliver 2 million apprenticeship starts. We have introduced traineeships for young people, we are supporting national colleges for key sectors and technologies and of course more than half of university students are doing a course that leads directly to a profession.

[Mr Dominic Raab]

I welcome the huge progress that has been made. What progress has been made in implementing the Richards review recommendation to give employers greater purchasing power over apprentices’ training to drive up standards?

[Mr Willetts]

I met Doug Richards in a very upbeat mood only half an hour ago, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we agree with Doug Richards that employers should purchase apprenticeship training. We want providers to respond to businesses, not to Government. We have consulted widely on how to make that happen. We will publish details of our preferred payment mechanism and next steps in the autumn.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman and the Minister appear to have a symbiotic relationship, and we are grateful for that, I am sure.

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

Despite all the praiseworthy emphasis that the Government have placed on increasing the number of apprentices, the number of apprenticeship starts in the under-19 age group is dropping. The BIS Committee recommended that the Government should use public procurement to increase those numbers, as a lot of local authorities do. Why have the Government not done it?

[Mr Willetts]

The Government believe in promoting apprenticeships across the public sector. Figures published today show an increase in the number of apprenticeships in that crucial age group.

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

Apprenticeships are essential to help deliver a growing economy, but nearly 400 employers in the north-west have replied to the future of apprenticeships in England funding reform technical consultation, and they have said that they will no longer recruit apprentices under the reforms that the Government propose. Will the Minister please say what he intends to do specifically for SMEs, which are concerned about the proposals?

[Mr Willetts]

We have had a range of reactions to our consultation, and the national bodies that represent businesses strongly support the proposals that we and in particular my excellent colleague the Minister for Skills and Enterprise are putting forward.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

As a dyspraxic, I remember how much extra effort I needed to put in to succeed at university. Students with disabilities and learning difficulties will be concerned about the Government’s reforms to the disabled students allowance, under which many of them will lose out. The evidence shows that students with learning difficulties are already less likely to complete their course and less likely to achieve the highest grades. Why does the Minister want to widen that gap even further?

[Mr Willetts]

Let me be clear: we are committed to helping disabled students. We will expect universities to do more to discharge their direct responsibilities to disabled students. Often, improved provision by universities is a better way of helping disabled students than funding to individual students. We will maintain strong support for disabled students.

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

5. What support his Department is giving to the life sciences sector.

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

We are promoting research and development, innovation and manufacturing so the UK is a global leader in life sciences. Businesses in life sciences have announced more than £2 billion of investment since our strategy was launched.

[Mr Buckland]

Following my right hon. Friend’s recent visit with me to see cutting edge 3D print technology at BD’s plant in Swindon, will he work with me to help the further development of high-value specialist manufacturing at companies such as BD, Patheon and Catalent, which form an important part of Swindon’s life sciences sector?

[Mr Willetts]

I remember vividly that visit last month and congratulate my hon. Friend on his very good working relationships with local employers. He is right that our life sciences strategy is not simply about research and development, important though that is. It is also about supporting high-tech manufacturing and promoting more of that in the UK.

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

In the run-up to the election, it is important that we try to maximise consensus across the House on science policy. To help the debate, we launched our Green Paper on science on Tuesday, and I welcome the Royal Society’s report today. It is important to be honest about where we are, though. Life science investment has fallen, according to the Library, by almost £500 million since 2010. In the last year for which data are available, total R and D spending in the UK is down by nearly £1 billion. We are now 23rd out of 33 for R and D spending in the OECD. Why does the Minister think that is? I am sure he will agree that this is not the way to win a race to the top.

[Mr Willetts]

A major change is happening in the structure of the life sciences industry, with it moving away from having large, in-house R and D facilities. That trend is happening around the world. We have been particularly successful in this country in making sure that as that happens we promote alternative investment, and we are now seeing—for example, in the facility that Pfizer operated in Kent—significant renewal as new, small businesses come in. Our life sciences strategy is attracting new investment to the UK—£2 billion of it since we launched the strategy.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to promote regional growth.

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

We want to see growth that is sustainable and balanced, but it is local businesses and civic leaders who best understand what drives growth in their area. Through local enterprise partnerships they will have at least £20 billion to allocate until 2020.

[Mark Menzies]

May I take this opportunity to welcome the Government’s proposed plans to build a high-speed rail network between our great northern cities? In the light of that announcement will the Minister assure me that local businesses in Fylde and the local enterprise zone in Warton will continue to receive the full support of Government to promote growth in west Lancashire?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I give my hon. Friend that assurance and tell him that we hope before the summer recess to agree a growth deal with the Lancashire local enterprise partnership, centring on the arc of prosperity it has identified alongside Lancashire’s huge strengths in energy, manufacturing and engineering.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

On support for regional growth, when will the financing be agreed for the electrification of the south Wales valleys train lines?

[Michael Fallon]

I shall certainly raise that with my colleagues in the Department for Transport. I do not have the date to hand, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that investment.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

17. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on local government leaders, LEPs and local MPs to work with local businesses to ensure that places such as Carlisle maximise their potential as an economic powerhouse in their region? Does he agree also that local government and local businesses are as important as national Government in promoting growth and job creation?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I absolutely agree. I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their input into the Cumbria economic plan. I saw that close working for myself when I chaired the recent Cumbria forum on advanced manufacturing.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Regional growth is dependent on good transport connections, and there has been widespread concern in northern Lincolnshire among the business community about the threat to services on the south transpennine line. Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation of business leaders from northern Lincolnshire to discuss that and other issues?

[Michael Fallon]

I am very happy to meet any delegation of business leaders with my hon. Friend. I am not the Minister for rail transport, but I shall certainly refer the issue to the Department for Transport, and I am happy to have the meeting that my hon. Friend requests.

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

7. What additional funding for training his Department has provided to support unemployed people and people aged 16 to 24 to get into employment.

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

We have record numbers participating in apprenticeships, new traineeships, maths and English training, which, with the record number of jobs, have contributed to a 98,000 fall in youth unemployment over the last year. We are simplifying vocational education and today publishing a simple slide showing young people their education options between the ages of 14 and 18.

[Mr Evans]

I have a BAE Systems plant at Samlesbury in my constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) has one in Warton. BAE Systems took on a record number of apprentices last year, giving young people an opportunity to learn new skills to use in highly paid jobs when they are later taken on. What are the Government doing to encourage many more smaller firms to understand that apprenticeships can also benefit them?

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to the work that BAE Systems does with its apprenticeships. It not only has hundreds of apprentices, many of whom I have met, but offers more and more higher apprenticeships, which provide the very best available training on the job. We have to make sure that smaller businesses get the message that apprenticeships can help them too; in fact, the majority of apprentices are in smaller businesses. We have made the apprenticeship grant for employers focused on smaller businesses to help them with the extra costs they have in taking on apprentices.

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

15. When are the Government going to put an emphasis on quality apprenticeships? Why do we need 47 different streams of funding for skills generally? When are we going to sort out on-the-job training from actual apprenticeships? Are the Government lumping on-the-job training into the figures for apprenticeships, when apprenticeships are totally different?

[Matthew Hancock]

No, the figures for apprenticeships show the number of apprenticeships. They also show that we are on track to achieve 2 million apprenticeships in this Parliament—in fact, figures published at 9.30 this morning show that there have been 1.8 million apprenticeships since the election. We are simplifying the funding structures and putting more money through employers, so that they can buy the apprenticeship training they need.

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

I believe that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), and I are both due to attend the Royal London Society for Blind People’s youth forum launch of “Let’s Work It Out”, which seeks to identify the barriers to visually impaired young people getting into employment. What more can the Government do to encourage employers to see the potential of visually impaired young people and to make them more aware of the technological assistance that can enable them to function in the workplace?

[Matthew Hancock]

Making sure that those who are visually impaired can fulfil their potential in the workplace is a vital part of the training we support. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is the president of the organisation that the hon. Lady mentions. Apprenticeships are one option, and there are specific mechanisms to ensure that those who are visually impaired can complete an apprenticeship, but more broadly we need to make sure that the whole skills system works as much for those with disabilities as for those who are fully able.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s policies on small businesses and the self-employed.

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

The Government are making it easier to start, finance and grow small businesses. There are now 400,000 more small businesses than in 2010. The total number stands at a record 4.9 million, with a record 4.5 million people in self-employment. Yesterday, we introduced in the House the first ever small business Bill.

[Bill Esterson]

The Federation of Small Businesses index has highlighted that small businesses are still struggling to get the finance they need to expand—something confirmed by small businesses in my constituency to a very large degree. The FSB also calls for greater competition and choice in business banking. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s failed schemes, including Project Merlin and credit easing, have had no impact whatsoever?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman was doing quite well until that last exaggeration. I certainly agree that strengthening access to finance is a vital part of securing our recovery, and of course measures in the Bill announced yesterday will help to do that, but according to the FSB, small businesses’ confidence is at a high since Labour’s great recession. Small businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are playing their part, because unemployment on the claimant count has fallen by 30% in the past year.

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

Small businesses in my constituency and around the country tell me that the real struggle when they are supplying large businesses is payment terms. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring large companies to publish their payment practices is an important step in helping to drive a more responsible payment culture between large and small businesses?

[Matthew Hancock]

I agree with my hon. Friend so much that we put such measures in the Bill we published yesterday.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I recently held a listening event for businesses across Bolton West. A major concern for them, and a definite barrier to success for micro-businesses, is business rates. As they have gone up by £1,500 already in this Parliament and by another £270 in April, will the Minister support a cut in business rates in 2015 and a freeze the year after?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is interesting to hear another Labour proposal that is uncosted and unfunded. We have instead taken action to reduce by £1,000 the business rates on retail premises. We are clear that business rates need reform, and that reform will happen, but what we need are sensible contributions to the debate, given the enormous hole in the public finances that we are still having to fill.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to encourage foreign direct investment.

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

UK Trade & Investment is promoting a highly competitive corporation tax regime, seeking investment in regeneration and infrastructure and emphasising the quality of our research base, all of which make us the best place in Europe to do business.

[Mr Bellingham]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been hugely significant inward investment of £500 million by the German firm Palm Paper in a paper mill in King’s Lynn? Does he agree that we need more such inward investment, and that to promote more foreign direct investment we need to deregulate further social and employment measures?

[Mr Willetts]

Our flexible labour market is one of the many reasons that foreign investors are keen to invest in the UK and we can always pursue that important agenda further. The latest independent assessment shows that the UK was the most successful country in Europe in attracting inward investment.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of regulation on businesses.

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

We have significantly reduced the burden of regulation on business. The one-in, two-out rule has cut the annual cost of domestic regulation by £1.2 billion so far, and the red tape challenge has identified over 3,000 regulations to be scrapped or improved. To ensure that all future Governments remain committed to reducing burdens, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill published yesterday requires Governments to publish a target for removing regulatory burdens in each Parliament and to report against it.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent reply. Does he agree that for business and enterprise to flourish, particularly in constituencies such as mine that have many small and medium-sized enterprises, we must stop the strangling of business by regulation from the European Union, and that means that the Prime Minister is doing absolutely the right thing in trying to reform Europe so that business can flourish in this country?

[Michael Fallon]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I can tell him that of the 30 specific reforms requested by the business taskforce I chaired last year, nine have already been delivered, two further directives were withdrawn last month, and since the transposition rules were tightened three years ago there has been only one example of a European directive being gold-plated, which was the consumer credit directive that banned excessive payment surcharges.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Bathroom Manufacturers Association is just one trade body which feels that regulatory policy has too little focus on enforcement of regulation. That leads to the undercutting of compliant, high-quality British manufacturers by cheap, non-compliant foreign imports. When will the Government understand that a mature and consistent approach to enforcement of regulation is not a burden on high-quality British manufacturing business, but an aid to it?

[Michael Fallon]

I am happy to meet that trade association to follow up its specific concerns. The hon. Gentleman is right that business needs uniform and proportionate enforcement, and we are looking to deliver that through improved guidance with the relevant bodies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to support energy-intensive industries.

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

In the Budget the Government announced a package of support of £500 million a year for energy-intensive industries. From 2016, we will introduce compensation for the costs of the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff. We will also be extending to 2019 the compensation scheme for the emissions trading scheme and the carbon price floor. Together with amendments to the carbon price floor, these changes will be worth around £7 billion to businesses in Britain.

[David Mowat]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that several of our EU competitors are increasingly cross-subsidising industrial use of electricity, creating a difficult landscape for our energy-intensive industries. A recent example of the impact of this is BOAL Aluminium, an aluminium processor which was going to invest £2 million in the UK but has moved that, with all the associated jobs, to Belgium, where energy costs 30% less. Is there more we can do to prevent carbon leakage of that type?

[Michael Fallon]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing representatives of the aluminium industry to see me in the Department. It is important that we in Britain do not lose out on such investment. We have already paid out some £30 million of compensation to 53 of the most electricity-intensive companies and we will continue to press for further reform in Europe.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is good that some support is coming from 2016, but energy-intensive industries need support now in the challenging times they face. It is good that the Government have finally got their package of compensation for their unilateral carbon floor tax through Europe, but the Minister has previously given commitments to get that backdated to 2013, as promised to business. What progress has he made in getting that compensation backdated?

[Michael Fallon]

It took some 18 months to get that compensation scheme approved by the Commission, which is why it will take some time to get the compensation for the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff and why that scheme will not apply until April 2016. The Commission did not agree to our request for backdating.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked exactly the same question in April and today received pretty much word for word the same unsatisfactory response. The fact is that the Government have imposed a unilateral carbon price floor that is widely divergent from the EU emissions trading scheme, which has put Britain’s energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage to our European counterparts and done nothing to prevent carbon leakage or encourage investment in low-carbon energy. What practical steps is the Minister taking to shape reform of the ETS to make it more credible and to level the playing field for British industry, or have the Government lost that battle in Europe too?

[Michael Fallon]

Other countries such as Germany can of course offer higher support to their industries, but they did not have the appalling deficit that we inherited, because of course they did not have a Labour Government. I intend to ask the new Commission this autumn for an early review of the ETS and to include new sectors, such as cement, that have missed out so far.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

12. What support his Department is providing to apprenticeships.

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

The number of apprenticeships has doubled and we are on track to deliver 2 million over this Parliament—this morning’s figures show that there are 1.8 million so far. It is all part of our long-term economic plan.

[Jack Lopresti]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. There are exciting plans to develop an aerospace apprenticeship training centre as part of the iAero proposals for the former Filton airfield land, which are being discussed by his Department and aerospace businesses in my constituency. Can he assure me of his support for those plans?

[Matthew Hancock]

I am enthusiastic about those plans. We are working closely with my hon. Friend and colleagues in the aerospace industry to see whether we can make them happen. The number of apprenticeships in Filton is up by 60% since 2010, so it is clearly a success story and we want to build on that success.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What resources have been allocated for enforcement action against employers who do not pay the national minimum wage.

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

The Government are committed to increasing compliance with minimum wage legislation. Everyone who is entitled to the minimum wage should receive it. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has 173 staff dedicated to enforcing the national minimum wage, and the Government are already taking tougher action on employers who break the law. We have made it simpler to name and shame employers who do not pay the national minimum wage and have increased the financial penalties for breaking the law.

[Andy Sawford]

I thank the Minister for her response, but in Corby HMRC found that £120,000 was owed to local workers, and that was just on a three-day visit, so it was the tip of the iceberg and we need to do much more. Will she, in her last days in her role, leave a present for her successor by beginning a review into how local authorities could take a much stronger enforcement role? They currently enforce on planning, parking and environmental health, so why can they not have a role in making the local labour market work for people?

[Jenny Willott]

Clearly we feel very strongly that employers should pay the national minimum wage. People working on the minimum wage are, by definition, on the lowest incomes in society, so it is critical that everything is done to ensure that they are paid it. Every complaint that is made to the pay and work rights helpline is investigated, and where arrears are found they are paid back and employers pay a significant penalty. We are happy to work with any part of Government and any organisations that are keen to ensure that the minimum wage is paid. We will ensure that any complaints reported to the pay and work rights helpline are investigated.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), who has always been a very kind and effective Minister, and wish her well in her return to the dark arts of the Government Whips Office. Given that compliment, I am sure that she will wish to agree with me that any sanctions for non-compliance with the national minimum wage are ineffective without proper enforcement. Figures show that since the Government came to power the number of national minimum wage inspections is down by 60%, with only two prosecutions. That is hardly surprising, given that a recent answer she gave to a parliamentary question committed a budget of £9.2 million to enforcement, but the head of the national minimum wage enforcement unit publicly stated only last month that the budget is just £8 million. Just like the Chancellor’s hollow promise to increase the national minimum wage to £7, is this not just another example of the Government failing to stand up for the lowest paid against rogue employers?

[Jenny Willott]

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The enforcement action taken by HMRC has significantly increased the number of workers who are getting the wages they are due. Between 2009-10 and 2013-14, there was an increase of over 17% in the number of workers who were helped and were given arrears, and the amount that has been paid back has been increased significantly. In addition, we are increasing fourfold the penalty that employers have to pay, and we now have in place a very draconian naming and shaming scheme. That means that all employers who are found not to have paid the national minimum wage are put forward for naming and shaming, and, unless exceptional circumstances are involved, they will be named publicly. That is acting as a real disincentive to employers not to treat their staff fairly.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of manufacturing.

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

Office for National Statistics figures for April show that manufacturing output in the UK rose by 4.4% year on year—the fastest pace since February 2011. Industrial production rose by 1.1% in the three months to April compared with the previous three months—the strongest three-monthly growth since June 2010.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. With the need for more skills in energy engineering in mind, does he agree that it is a very good idea to have a centre for those skills at the now-decommissioned Berkeley power station, and that that represents a significant step in the right direction for the long-term economic plan?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I do agree. That project is a key part of Gloucestershire’s economic plan, and it can provide the skills that we will need for the next generation of nuclear power stations at Hinkley and Oldbury. We are currently considering Gloucestershire’s request for local growth funding to support the project. I hope to announce the allocation for Gloucestershire as part of the growth deal before the summer recess.

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

16. What recent support his Department has provided to small businesses.

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

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill builds on a record of 42,000 businesses helped to export by UK Trade & Investment over the past year and 15,000 small businesses supported by the growth accelerator scheme. As the Secretary of State said earlier, the number of start-up loans approved has reached 18,000.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, large businesses still owe small businesses over £30 billion in overdue invoices. Only yesterday, a company in Basildon contacted me to say that one of Essex county council’s main contractors owes it well over £100,000 past the due date. Will he expand on how we will use the small business Bill to resolve this issue and pump billions back into the economy?

[Matthew Hancock]

The Bill contains two elements on prompt payment, the first of which is to increase the amount that Government pay quickly. BIS pays almost all its invoices within 30 days and the vast majority within five days. We will also bring transparency so that when small businesses enter into contracts with large businesses they know their payment performance and can negotiate on that as part of the contract.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thought that we were through all the substantive questions with time to spare, but we will take a question from Debbie Abrahams.

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

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.

I am pleased that the Government have finally produced a Bill to deal with late payments to small businesses by large companies. It includes some of the recommendations from my inquiry last summer into late payments. However, it does not go far enough and will give little comfort to the small businesses whose viability is threatened. Why are these measures so timid?

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this subject. We consulted on all the potential options, including statutory maximums for payment terms. We put the consultation out with an open mind and a wide range of options. In fact, the small business groups that came forward with proposals in response to the consultation favoured transparency, not a statutory limit. We followed the evidence and the response to the consultation. Like her, I am determined to do everything we can to tackle this problem while not getting in the way of freedom of contract between businesses. We have taken these measures because of what the evidence demonstrated, and I think they will have a big impact. That is all part of our long-term economic plan.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Mr Denham]

In September, the Portsmouth warship yard, where many of my constituents work, will shut. That will leave the Government without a plan B for warships if the referendum goes the wrong way. The work force will be dispersed before there is an alternative user and the shipyard’s role in providing manufacturing apprenticeships across southern England will be lost. Will the Secretary of State look to delay the closure until the referendum is over, until there is a new user and until there is a credible plan for training manufacturing and engineering apprentices in southern Hampshire?

[Vince Cable]

The maritime industries are, of course, crucial in Portsmouth, as they are in the right hon. Gentleman’s Southampton constituency. On the approach we are adopting, a Government group led by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) is as rapidly as possible finding alternative commercial users, working with the Ministry of Defence. I welcome in particular the very exciting Ben Ainslie project and my colleague is working closely with Rear-Admiral Stevens to develop the Solent maritime industries.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T2. Fylde has a significant amount of advanced manufacturing companies, including BAE Systems and Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel. May we have an update on what steps are being taken to increase the number of highly skilled apprenticeships in the advanced manufacturing sector?

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

Absolutely. Through the trailblazer process, we are putting employers in charge of the training involved in apprenticeships, to make sure that, in addition to the big increase in numbers we are seeing, we increase the quality of training so that all young people have the opportunity to use an apprenticeship as an alternative to university in order to reach their potential.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State think it is acceptable for a Government Department to increase reporting requirements twelvefold for businesses?

[Vince Cable]

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but as the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said a moment ago, we have taken considerable action drastically to reduce the regulatory burden on business.

[Mr Umunna]

I am talking about the disgraceful burden being heaped on the one in five self-employed people in this country who will be in receipt of universal credit. Those businesses are being required to report their income not once a year, but every single month. Their earnings are being computed on a completely different basis from the assessment carried out by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for tax purposes, and the minimum income they will be assumed to have is for 35 hours a week at the minimum wage. That is unjust and unworkable and it does not reflect how those businesses work. Why has this ministerial team sat back and allowed the red tape baron—the Work and Pensions Secretary—to erect this barrier to aspiration?

[Vince Cable]

I would have thought that most reasonable people would welcome the growth of self-employment and entrepreneurship that is happening under this Government. I think they would also probably welcome the fact that the benefits system demands maximum integrity.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

T7. Do Ministers agree that a central part of the long-term economic plan is the delivery of skills to the increasingly innovative and research-oriented manufacturing sector?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes. As my hon. Friend may know, I am a fan of the long-term economic plan. In fact, I have found a copy in my pocket if he wants one. Skills are a vital part of our long-term economic plan, because there is no doubt that, if we are not only to maximise our economic capacity in the future, but to make sure everyone in this country fulfils their potential, we have to deliver on the skills that employers need.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

T3. Britain has a crisis in finding young people willing to study engineering, yet I have received an e-mail about a 19-year-old who has been offered a place on a pathways to apprenticeships engineering course. He will get access to £30 a week living allowance, but he will lose his unemployment allowance and he cannot access student grants. He may well not be able to take up the course. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is joined-up action across Departments for young people who want to study crisis employment subjects?

[Matthew Hancock]

I recognise the problem that used to exist. The introduction of traineeships has tackled that. It is now possible for someone to go on a traineeship while still receiving their jobseeker’s allowance, because we have tackled the 16-hour rule for traineeships. If the hon. Lady writes to me about the individual case, I will make sure it is taken into account.

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

At the Mighty Middle conference held by GE Capital and the Reform think-tank this week, mid-sized companies from across Britain were exceptionally positive about the Government’s long-term economic plan. What more can we do to celebrate and assist those mid-sized companies?

[Vince Cable]

Mid-sized companies are absolutely central to the Government’s industrial strategy. We are working with them to develop supply chains in the car industry, aerospace and the various energy sectors, and to support access to finance, training and innovation. They have a great deal of potential, as they do in countries such as Germany, where the Mittelstand are better developed than they are here.

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

T4. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the excellent “The state of the coalfields” report produced by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust? The report has highlighted particular problems, including a legacy of high and persistent youth unemployment, especially in the NEETs group of those not in education, employment or training. I also draw to his attention an excellent organisation in east Durham, the East Durham Employability Trust. What additional support can be put in its direction?

[Matthew Hancock]

I have seen the report on the future of the coalfields. On the issue of NEETs, I would point out that yesterday’s figures show that the number of people not in education, employment or training is at a record low since the series of statistics began in 1994. I have no doubt that there is much more to do, because any young person not in education, employment or training is one NEET too many. The fact that the number of NEETs is at a record low shows that the economic plan is working.

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

On the issue of new EU legislation, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would benefit British business if the EU adopted the same one-in, two-out rule that the UK Government apply?

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

It is encouraging that the one-in, two-out rule, or the one-in, one-out rule, is increasingly being adopted by other member states, including France and Spain. I shall visit Brussels next month to urge the Commission to redouble its efforts to remove unnecessary directives, and to make sure that where new directives are proposed, they fully take account of the needs of small businesses, which are most likely to create the jobs we need in Europe.

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

T5. More than a third of winning bidders in the regional growth fund’s first round have now withdrawn, while others have waited about two years to receive any money at all. Is this all part of the Government’s long-term economic plan?

[Michael Fallon]

It certainly is not. There are many reasons why some RGF bidders withdraw—because they do not get the planning permission they were anticipating, their main board does not give final approval for the plant, or they are not prepared to put in private sector money alongside the regional growth fund grant. Any money that is not used is of course put into future rounds of the fund. It is important that we carry out the necessary due diligence and check before taxpayer money is handed over.

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

The Business Secretary gave us the welcome news that the local growth fund will come on stream next year. Infrastructure is the key to allowing local businesses to develop. Will there be enough money in the local growth fund to improve and upgrade the A64 along its whole route from York through Malton to Scarborough?

[Michael Fallon]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to be patient for a few weeks longer before we announce the local growth deal for the local enterprise partnership covering her constituency, but I am aware that that is one of the projects that the local enterprise partnership wants to prioritise.

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

T6. When the Prime Minister returned from the G7, he painted a very positive picture of progress in establishing public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but the real picture is that only half of them have started or concluded their consultations. This is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to show off his leadership skills, so what work is he doing with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make some real progress on this issue?

[Vince Cable]

We will have an opportunity to discuss this in detail, because an open register of beneficial ownership will be one of the elements in the small business Bill. Britain will pioneer work in this area. Of course there are issues with our offshore territories. We are not a colonial power that can send in gunboats to solve these problems; we rely on persuasion, and that is what we will do.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What does the Secretary regard as his finest achievement in office? What is his main goal for his last year in the Department?

[Vince Cable]

There is a very long list of achievements that would bore the House considerably were I to dwell excessively on it, but the set of advances that we have made in giving business a long-term perspective through the industrial strategy, the collaboration with business and the associated work that we have done on access to finance, the build up of apprenticeships and the developments in innovation through the Catapult make up a considerable legacy of achievement.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Two thirds of students on disabled students allowances are dyslexic. Cuts to DSAs affect both the students and the institutions, and penalise both. Will the Secretary of State think again about reversing these cuts?

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

Let us be clear. We are consulting widely on these changes. The main change is that people should only be supported with extra services, rather than, for example, getting laptops indiscriminately, as they do at the moment. We are talking directly to the representative groups involved and students will not lose out by these changes.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Every one of the 14 letters that the Governor of the Bank of England has written to the Chancellor explaining why the inflation target has not been met has mentioned the rising input cost of resources. What are the Government doing to tackle the problems of input resource price spikes and to incentivise infrastructure in the circular economy to cope with that?

[Vince Cable]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to energy costs, which has been the main issue in the inflation of raw material inputs. My colleague the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks gave a very full answer in explaining the compensation mechanisms that we are introducing to offset them.

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

Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in tackling non-compliance by employers who fail to pay apprentices the rate they should?

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

We wrote to the Low Pay Commission on its remit for next year. One of the things we have asked it to look at is the apprenticeship rate for the national minimum wage. We are aware that there are a lot of concerns, particularly about non-compliance in paying the national minimum wage for apprentices. The system is quite complex and often employers find it difficult to navigate. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to work out how the system could be simplified to ensure better compliance by employers.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

A recent Which? investigation found that ticketing companies can add up to 37% to the face value of a ticket for music and theatre events in booking and delivery fees. Given that the market is dominated by a handful of big players, is the Minister confident that consumers are getting a good deal?

[Jenny Willott]

We have done a lot of work on ticketing. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we discussed this issue a number of times during the passage of the Consumer Rights Bill. The Department has been working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to look at the issue and a number of things are being done to try to tackle ticket touting, while trying to ensure that we still have a vibrant market so that individuals who buy tickets and want to resell them because they cannot attend an event are able to do so fairly and openly.

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

Like a number of MPs, I have taken on an apprentice, something that has been recommended by the Minister, but as a small employer this has only been made possible by the Liverpool chamber of commerce, which provides all the training, development and support for James, my apprentice. Under his proposed reforms, how does the Minister expect MPs to take on apprentices and provide the same high standard of training and support and administer training budgets? How much time does he expect us to take on this?

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

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady has an apprentice. I now have two apprentices and the House has an apprenticeship scheme that the Clerk has been instrumental in bringing forward. Under the new system we will make sure that small businesses and small employers, including MPs, can take on apprentices, and training providers will have a role to play just as they do now in helping with bureaucracy.

[Luciana Berger]

How much time?

[Matthew Hancock]

I do not expect it to take any more time than it does at the moment and I am sure that it will be just as valuable for the hon. Lady and for other MPs as it will be for small businesses across the land.

Business of the House

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

10:29

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 30 June—Opposition Day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Chaos and Waste at the Department for Work and Pensions” on an Opposition motion. I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.

Tuesday 1 July—Motion to approve a procedural resolution relating to the Finance Bill, followed by motions to approve Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 1).

Wednesday 2 July—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 3 July—General debate on protecting children in conflict, followed by a general debate on social mobility and child poverty strategy. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee in the last Session.

Friday 4 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 7 July will include:

Monday 7 July—Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on universal credit implementation, followed by a debate on the implementation of the common agricultural policy in England. At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. Details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: Universal Credit implementation: monitoring DWP’s performance in 2012-13, 5th Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, HC 1209, Session 2013-14, and the Government response published as a 2nd Special Report, HC 426, Session 2014-15; and Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in England in 2014-20, 7th report from the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HC 745, Session 2013-14, and the Government response published as 7th Special Report, HC 1008, 2013-14.]

Tuesday 8 July—Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Bill, followed by proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill.

Wednesday 9 July—Opposition Day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Thursday 10 July—General debate, subject to be announced.

Friday 11 July—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 3 July will be:

Thursday 3 July—Debate on the seventh report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the UK’s response to extremism and instability in north and west Africa, followed by a debate on the sixth report of the Communities and Local Government Committee on local government procurement.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the written statement today from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, informing the House of the publication on 17 July of the report of Lady Justice Hallett on the on-the-runs administrative scheme.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for that announcement.

Later today, we will debate the commemoration of the centenary of the first world war. We must never forget the monumental sacrifice of those who gave their lives, including Thomas Neely, a Victoria Cross recipient from Seacombe in my constituency, who died less than 50 days before the armistice.

Andy Coulson’s conviction this week has raised serious questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment. He and his staff were warned that some brave journalists were writing openly about Coulson’s behaviour, but he carried on anyway and brought a criminal into the heart of No. 10. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Prime Minister was not just ignorant about Andy Coulson, but wilfully negligent? Does he support calls for uniformity of vetting for senior Downing street advisers? Will he ask the Prime Minister to return to the House to make a statement, including telling us if he was advised by any senior civil servants in No. 10 against employing Andy Coulson?

Next week, we will be discussing the Finance Bill. The Leader of the House told me last week that everything is going very well, so will he explain why the Chancellor’s plan to cut the deficit is already running four years late and why he is borrowing £190 billion more than he planned? While he is at it, will he tell us why the Chancellor boasts about unemployment rates, while a report this week shows that new job creation has slumped and 60% of those on benefits are actually in work? Is not the truth that this is the slowest recovery for 100 years and that the vast majority of people are just not feeling the benefit?

The crisis at the Department for Work and Pensions just gets worse and the lives of some of the most vulnerable in our society just get harder. On Friday, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee condemned the personal independence payment as a “fiasco”. On Monday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions sounded increasingly deluded as he defended his calamitous universal credit programme. Yesterday, it was revealed that universal credit could cost the public purse another £750 million because the DWP has not worked out how to integrate it with free school meals.

The Work and Pensions Secretary told the House:

“Universal credit is on track to roll out against the timetable set out last year.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2014; Vol. 583, c. 9.]

However, at the current rate of progress, will it not take a staggering 1,052 years before this programme is complete?

Universal credit is in chaos. The Secretary of State has lost control of his Department. Given that the Leader of the House is such an expert on “pausing” costly and calamitous reforms, does he accept that the Government should now pause universal credit?

This Government are completely out of touch and completely unable to deliver on any of their promises. When they came to office, the vast majority of people could see a doctor within 48 hours; now one in four cannot do so within a week. They promised a bigger Army for a safer Britain, but the former Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that the Army is not in a “fit state” to deal with current threats.

It is no wonder that two parliamentary private secretaries resigned from the Government this week to spend more time with their marginal constituencies—and the Government are in such disarray that their Departments did not even notice that they had gone. The Government have a Tourism Minister who declared from Brazil that people without passports should holiday at home, they have a Health Minister who thinks it “exciting” that the Government have lost control of the national health service, and they have a Prime Minister who claimed that he had done nothing wrong, but apologised so profusely that he very nearly wrecked the high-profile criminal trial of his mates at News International.

This week, I received an invitation to the Commons versus Lords shooting competition. I hope that the Commons team does not include any Ministers, because if it does, they will end up shooting themselves in the foot—or they might even end up shooting each other.

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister sent the England football team a recorded good luck message, and just over a week later, the team crashed out of the World cup. With the European Council upon us and the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker looking increasingly inevitable, may I suggest one last desperate tactic that the Prime Minister could use to stop him? Forget about the Luxembourg compromise; the Prime Minister should send him a good luck message.

When it comes to negotiating in Europe, the Prime Minister should learn a lot from the World cup. Do not let expectations get the better of you; do not underestimate the power of smaller countries; and biting—or, indeed, backbiting—is never a good idea.

[Mr Lansley]

As the shadow Leader of the House said, we are rightly having a debate today to commemorate the events of the great war, and I am glad that we are able to do so just two days before the centenary of the events that precipitated that calamity. I hope that, during today’s debate, we shall hear from Members who represent constituencies throughout the country whose constituents are planning a wide range of commemorations over the next four years. For my part, I remember talking to my grandfather about the second battle of Ypres. He was at Hill 60, where Lieutenant Harold Woolley was the first member of the Territorial Army to earn a Victoria Cross. I think that all of us, through our families, have recollections of those who were there—including those who were injured or, indeed, lost—and today’s debate will give us an important opportunity to commemorate that sacrifice.

I am afraid I must tell the shadow Leader of the House that, although the jacket has got brighter, the jokes have got a bit duller. It is a shame. They are better than my jokes, though.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

I will wear a black jacket next week!

[Mr Lansley]

No, please don’t. As we move to summer, it is a great step forward.

In earlier sessions of business questions, the shadow Leader of the House had a thing going. It was called “mind the gap”, and it sort of disappeared. [Interruption.] Or was it there? If so, I missed it. I was wondering whether it would put in an appearance. It seemed to me that it was probably better to mind the gap than to throw someone in front of the train, which appears to be the latest suggestion. I am not quite sure who is in charge of Labour party policy, and I am not sure that it really matters that much, but the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) seems to be suggesting that no one else needs to be thrown in front of the train, because the Leader of the Opposition is already standing in front of the train and will be the subject of the train crash when it comes. I think that is a rather sad reflection on what the hon. Lady’s colleagues feel about the position of the Leader of the Opposition.

I listened to Prime Minister’s questions yesterday; I think the Leader of the Opposition asked exactly the same question and got absolutely the right answer. If we look back at the evidence that was taken and the conclusions reached by Lord Justice Leveson, we see that he made it very clear that the Prime Minister received those assurances and acted on the basis of them at the time. If he had known then what we know now, it would have been very different. He has made it clear that he gave Andy Coulson a second chance and he regrets that he did, because it was, as it turned out, a misjudgment.

The hon. Lady asked about security clearance. Well, these are matters for the civil service, and the Leveson report is very clear, as was the evidence given by Gus O’Donnell, that it was a matter determined by civil servants, and rightly so, in relation to identifying where there is any risk.

The hon. Lady asked about the economy, which is good—I am glad she did. We are reducing the deficit we inherited from the Opposition. Their recession—Labour’s recession—cost every household in this country £3,000. We are cutting the deficit. It is down by a third already, and it will be down by a half by the end of the financial year. Two million private sector jobs have been created—[Interruption.] I am afraid that any amount of wriggling will not get out of the simple fact that jobs have been created in this country on an unprecedented basis, not least because small businesses are being created on an unprecedented scale—400,000 more small businesses and five new private sector jobs for every job lost in the public sector—as we are taking the necessary steps to reduce the waste and inefficiency that we found in the public sector under the last Government. That includes in the Department for Work and Pensions.

It was Labour who presided over the tax credit disasters, and Members all across the House in previous Parliaments will remember how many of their constituents found that the tax credit system was simply not working for them. Fraud and error were costing the welfare system £30 billion and there was no control on the welfare budget, and now, we have capped the welfare budget and Labour is in no position to criticise that. It will try on Monday and it will fail, because it cannot criticise the programme of welfare reform that is delivering on capping the costs of welfare while focusing resources on those who are most in need. That is what failed under the last Government. Costs were out of control and those often in the greatest need were not getting the greatest help.

At the Department of Health, I was only too aware of that waste, for example. In this Parliament, we will have taken £1.5 billion a year—in total in this Parliament, I think that the figure is about £5 billion—out of the administration cost of the NHS. It is because we have cut the number of administrators by 19,000 that we can increase, as we have, the number of doctors, nurses and other health professionals by 16,000, including over 1,000 more GPs than three years ago. The number of GPs per 100,000 in the population is now higher than it was at the time of the last election.

Overall, I noted that the shadow Leader of the House now no longer has some of the questions that she had last week, because we have presented this week two more of the Bills that were announced in the Queen’s Speech, so eight out of the 11 Bills announced in the Queen’s Speech are under way. She asked when we would have the first Second Reading. We are going to have the first Second Reading of one of those Bills taking place—on modern slavery—and I am looking forward to us proceeding successfully with the legislative programme set out in the Queen’s Speech.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House, notwithstanding the number of colleagues interested in catching my eye now, that there is a statement on health to follow and that the debate on the commemoration of the first world war is substantially subscribed. I am keen to try to accommodate everybody now, but if I am to have any chance of doing so, brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is essential.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Youth unemployment in my constituency in May 2010 stood at the scandalously high figure of 430. Last month, it was reduced to 200, showing that the coalition Government had reduced youth unemployment by half. We cannot be complacent and there is still more to be done, but can we have a debate in Government time on the measures that are being taken to improve apprenticeships to provide new opportunities for work and to encourage young people to understand that opportunities are out there, rather than a life on benefits, as was delivered by the last Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; what he says about his constituency is welcome and a good example of what is happening across the country, with the youth claimant count down by 129,000 in a year—the largest reduction in a year since 1997. The number of 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training is at its lowest in five years. The 1.7 million apprenticeships in this Parliament thus far are one of the central things that have made a big and positive difference, as has the Youth Contract and work experience more generally.

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 163, which stands in my name and those of other hon. Members?

[That this House expresses its utmost disgust with and condemnation of Global Vision College, Manchester, otherwise known as OLC and Manchester School of Economics, which has stolen £2,500 in fees from a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, refuses to return it, has failed to answer successive letters from the right hon. Member, and is guilty of the crime of larceny; calls on the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Home Secretary and Greater Manchester Police to investigate these swindlers; and warns everyone in Manchester and more widely to have nothing to do with this disreputable organisation.]

It refers to the swindle carried out by a so-called college in Manchester that keeps changing its name and location in an effort to evade responsibility. It has stolen £2,500 in advance fees from a constituent of mine, which had been sent of behalf of relatives who were then not able to take up their places. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask those responsible, who are named in my motion, to look into the issue and respond to me, and will he consider a debate on the matter, which is quite a wide problem across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and at the Home Office, in so far as that is also relevant, to respond to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue raised in his early-day motion. He will have noted the steps that the Government have taken to close down some 400 bogus colleges, and I am sure that he noted the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration earlier this week about the further steps being taken to ensure the integrity of our higher education system.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

In the light of the outstanding research referred to in the report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on mitochondrial transfer, and Professor Robert Winston’s concerns at the Government’s intention to introduce those techniques before they are known to be safe—as highlighted in early-day motion 122 that stands in my name and is garnering significant support—will the Leader of the House do all he can to ensure that Members who are profoundly concerned about the safety of three-parent techniques, whether or not they oppose them in principle, will be given the option to express that view when the matter comes before the House?

[That this House notes the comments of Professor Robert Winston reported in the Independent on Sunday on 15 June 2014 on the premature introduction of mitochondrial replacement techniques; urges the Government to heed his warning that a great deal more research in as many animal models as possible ought to be undertaken prior to such techniques being approved; further notes his view that full and far-reaching assessments must be conducted as to the potential risks to children born as a result of the procedures; and calls on the Department of Health to delay bringing the relevant regulations before Parliament until the international scientific community and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have declared the techniques safe.]

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. As she knows, mitochondrial donation techniques can give women who carry severe mitochondrial disease the opportunity to have children without passing on devastating genetic disorders. We consulted on the draft regulations that would be required to allow such treatment between February and May. We are considering the responses and will announce our plans as soon as possible. My hon. Friend will understand that such regulations would be subject to debates in both Houses of Parliament and require approval.

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

My constituent, David McIntyre, served his country for more than 11 years as a soldier in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and Afghanistan. As a result of events in his service, he has post-traumatic stress, depression and been assessed as being at risk of suicide. Despite his mental state, he faces extradition to the United States next week to answer charges, which he denies, relating to a commercial matter. Earlier this week, I wrote to the Home Secretary requesting an urgent meeting to discuss this matter, but to date I have received no reply. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to respond to my request for a meeting?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, be helpful to the hon. Lady and contact the Home Secretary. I am grateful that she has written to the Home Office, so that it has details of this case, and I will endeavour to ensure that she has an opportunity to meet the Home Secretary or the relevant Minister.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

On 9 June, I received a written answer from NHS England via the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), stating that no patients from the south-west had been sent for gamma knife treatment at University College London hospitals.



After pressing NHS England further, on Monday 23 June, I had another written answer saying exactly the opposite, admitting that it had paid for treatment of those patients. May we have a debate on the need for absolute honesty and accurate accounting from NHS England when answering Members’ questions, as I am not the only Member who has been fobbed off with inaccurate replies?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) wants to reply to the questions. I have no doubt he does, but it is my responsibility, and it is Ministers’ responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their responses to Members. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Public Administration Committee is examining the issue of the accountability of public bodies and their responses to Members’ questions. Notwithstanding all that, it is important for NHS England to ensure that it provides my hon. Friend with accurate information. I will ensure, with the Department of Health, that that is the case.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the statement about the Modern Slavery Bill. He is aware that there is substantial support on both sides of the House for the measure. Will he therefore guesstimate for us when it will complete its process here before going to the other place, even if this House tweaks it, hopefully, in a couple of important respects?

[Mr Lansley]

I do know how much support the Bill has and I appreciate its importance. I am grateful for the work that the right hon. Gentleman and others did during pre-legislative scrutiny to enable the Bill to come forward in the positive fashion that it has. It would probably be unwise of me to engage in speculation about the timing of the passage of legislation. It may even be regarded as presumptuous, as the House needs to consider the Bill and we need to make decisions about the timing of consideration beyond the Committee stage.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the renewal of rail franchises? The Southend to Fenchurch Street line used to be known as the misery line. It is now known as the happy line thanks to c2c, which should have its franchise renewed. That is in stark contrast with Abellio Greater Anglia, whose service is absolutely lousy and whose trains are clapped out, as its managing director will find out in two weeks when he travels on one with me.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Many years ago, when it was probably a bit more of a misery, I used to travel daily into Fenchurch Street on that line and so was familiar with it. Happily it is better, as he described. He will know that the competition for the Essex Thameside franchise is ongoing and an announcement about the award of the franchise is expected shortly. A new directly awarded franchise has been negotiated by the Government with the incumbent, Abellio Greater Anglia, for 27 months between the end of the current franchise in July and the start of the next competed franchise in October 2016. As is the case with many other franchises, worthwhile and significant benefits to passengers arise from new franchises. The competition for the next franchise will begin in spring next year, and a consultation will be carried out to inform the specification for that.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Wonga’s appalling deception and dishonesty has been laid bare. May we have a statement from the Chancellor on why that company or any of its directors should ever hold a credit licence again, or is the Government’s priority and focus the protection of Tory party friends and donors?

[Mr Lansley]

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks is uncalled for and inaccurate. He knows that. Members on both sides of the House will have been shocked by what they saw and the Financial Conduct Authority has taken important action on the matter. I am not in a position to say any more than what the FCA has said so far, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Treasury, in consultation with the FCA, whether they are in a position to offer a written statement to the House.

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

Last week I attended the “working together” conference organised by National Grid, EmployAbility and Round Oak school in my constituency. The aim of the conference was to share best practice in recruitment and employment practices, and to promote the widespread benefits of employing those with additional learning needs and disabilities. May we have a debate about the importance of ensuring that those with special needs are supported in their search for work?

[Mr Lansley]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to attend that conference. It reflects the fact that many of our leading employers across the country, large and small, are recognising the opportunities to support those with learning needs and disabilities in work. In July last year the Prime Minister launched the “disability confident” campaign, which has reached over 1,100 local and national employers throughout the country, increasing the confidence of employers in employing disabled people. I am very familiar with this in my own constituency over the years, through the work of the Papworth Trust. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that the point my hon. Friend made will be much shared among Members and he may find opportunities, not least with other Members, to seek a debate of that kind at some point in the future.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

In the light of Mr Justice Saunders’ comments in the Coulson trial, may we have an urgent debate to publish the legal advice given by the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister, who may have inadvertently placed himself above the law?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know that successive Governments have never published legal advice offered by the Attorney-General, nor commented on it. All I can say is that what the Prime Minister said the day before yesterday was not intended in any way to prejudice any aspect of the completion of the trial.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know that there was insufficient time last week to consider my amendments on Sunday trading. Given that the current law is absurd and prevents land-based companies from competing with the internet, protects the interests of Tesco Express more than any other company in the country and lumps garden centres in, many of which are small businesses and should not be prevented from opening for longer hours when they are often one-man bands, can he find time for us to have a proper debate about these absurdities so the House can consider whether further amendments need to be made?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will recall the answer I gave at previous business questions about the Government’s position, which is that we feel we are currently striking the right balance in the law on Sunday trading. I know that the debate on consideration of the Consumer Rights Bill was abbreviated—it was short—but there was an opportunity for points to be made in the course of it. Of course, if my hon. Friend wishes to bring forward any proposals, he can seek an Adjournment debate to raise issues in the House.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the letters to on-the-runs have aroused great anxiety in Northern Ireland and that efforts should be made to ensure that those letters cannot be allowed to let people evade justice, as appears to have been the case for one person. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of the statement on 17 July, will the Leader of the House set aside parliamentary time if necessary to legislate on the annulment of those ministerial letters to on-the-runs?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not want to prejudice that statement and I do not think I can comment on his question at this stage. I think it is sufficient for now that the statement will be on 17 July, and separately in this House the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is undertaking its own inquiry, which I can see is detailed, into all the matters surrounding the on-the-runs.

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

May we have an early debate on childhood obesity? Experts today have advised parents to cut fruit juice out of their children’s diets, after a generation of them have been told that fruit juice is healthy. This is somewhat confusing, and perhaps we should be focusing more on exercise for youngsters born with an iPhone between their hands, and stress that watching tennis at Wimbledon is fun, but getting out there and playing it is even more fun.

[Mr Speaker]

I second that proposition.

[Mr Lansley]

The House will recall that we have rightly had many opportunities to debate childhood obesity. My understanding is that the advice was that fruit juice intake should be moderated, rather than excluded from children’s diets. It is important to moderate the intake of all foods in a child’s diet to make sure it is balanced. We are looking for a proper balance between calories in and calories out, and the more we exercise, the easier it is to strike that balance. On a positive note, the latest data have shown a reduction in childhood obesity among pre-school children, and that needs to be sustained. It is only one positive step in what needs to be a long journey to reduce childhood obesity.

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

Trade union officials at the Cumbernauld office of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were told yesterday that the regional post-room where 40 people are employed has been earmarked for closure in March 2015, but the decision has yet to be taken. However, they were also told that 170 new jobs are to be created there. Can we have an early debate on this issue so that the Government can clarify for the House the plans for both job losses and job creation in Cumbernauld?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, not least from the answer the Prime Minister gave to a question yesterday, the HMRC is rightly trying to ensure that it is as efficient as possible in collecting tax and cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance. In the process, sometimes, changes inevitably have to be made to the structure of the business it undertakes. However, I will ask Treasury Ministers to respond to the hon. Gentleman, in so far as there is any particular information relating to Cumbernauld.

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

Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate or a statement on civil partnerships, which currently can be dissolved in only a certain number of courts? Only barristers are allowed to make representations, and for a constituent of mine, going to London adds costs. We should be looking for equality of treatment and allow such cases to be dealt with at county courts.

[Mr Lansley]

To be as helpful as I can, I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to my hon. Friend on this issue. However, other Members may also be interested in it, so I will check with him whether there is a way he can inform them about the issue she raises.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Peter Oborne, writing in today’s Telegraph, says that he warned the then future Prime Minister that he would be

“making an extremely worrying statement about the type of government he plans to lead if he allows Coulson anywhere near Downing Street”.

Given these widespread concerns expressed at the time, may we have a statement on the vetting processes used at the time and now, so that we make sure that vetting is of the highest status that can possibly be achieved?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit confused. The vetting process is a security vetting process, which is quite distinct from the choice that the Prime Minister rightly makes about whom he employs as his advisers, including in special adviser positions. Those are not the same process and should not be regarded as such. However, as the Prime Minister explained yesterday and as is reflected in the evidence to Leveson, a process of inquiry was of course undertaken when Andy Coulson was first appointed director of communications to the Conservative party. At that time and subsequently, questions were asked and assurances were received, which unfortunately led to—as we completely understand—the Prime Minister giving Mr Coulson a second chance, but it proved to be misplaced.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

In addition to the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday, can we at some point have a debate on Europe that would enable those of us who are inherently pro-European to make the point to our colleagues in Europe that, if members of the Council of Ministers are unable to make provision for and find a position for countries such as the UK that do not wish to have the euro and are never going to be part of the eurozone—if we cannot be found an honoured place in Europe, and are unable to protect the inherent national interests of the City of London—inevitably, they are starting to push this country nearer and nearer to the exit door?

[Mr Lansley]

We often have debates on this issue. My right hon. Friend is right, both in relation to the statement next week and subsequent debates, that it will be immensely important for us to set out clearly that we must have a reformed relationship with the European Union, one where we can be clear that this country’s interests can be protected. As one who also supports our membership of the European Union, I would say that our national interests have to be protected—the Prime Minister and this coalition Government have done that on issues such as banking union, the EU budget and the fiscal pact, where the Prime Minister exercised our veto. However, we can also promote our interests through membership of the European Union. That is equally part of this debate, and we can promote those interests by completing the single market, promoting competition, deregulation in Europe and ensuring that the EU budget is used effectively to support growth across the EU.

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

On top of the unfair treatment Hull receives in council funding and other funding that has been cut, this week the Chancellor forgot to mention that Hull is at the end of the HS3 route he was proposing and now we hear that the Deputy Prime Minister is talking about a golden triangle between Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield. In the light of the snubs the Government keep giving Hull, may we have a debate on this? We are doing our very best, getting the city of culture and Siemens into the city, but those are victories that are home-grown, not enabled by the Government.

[Mr Lansley]

That is uncharacteristically churlish on the part of the hon. Lady; the Government have been part of that, for example, being part of the negotiation with Siemens. The Chancellor talked at the beginning of this week about the vision for the future and greater east-west connectedness and, as she acknowledged, what he was talking about included Hull as part of that potential connectedness.

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

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), may we have a debate on the consistency of official advice on nutrition—and indeed on whether we need advice on nutrition at all—given the confusion that will inevitably be caused in the minds of the public following today’s advice that we should not be drinking fruit juice and instead should be drinking water? We have always been told that drinking fruit juice and was part of our “five a day”, but now we are told that we should be drinking water. May we have an early debate about whether we need such nanny state advice?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will have heard what I said in my reply a moment ago, but the recommendations published today are in draft form. The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is inviting comments on the scientific aspects of its report, and it will consider those and finalise the report later this year or early next year. I hope that my hon. Friend and other Members will have an opportunity at some point during that process to express their views about how we can best achieve that good advice to parents about the diet they provide to their children.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Other countries do not allow their football academies to take in foreign youngsters under the age of 18. Our home nations do allow that, partly because they want to feed those players into the Premier League, but that means that a lot of our players get dismissed at 16 and 17. The foreign countries are still in the World cup, but we are not. May we have a debate about the future of youth football in this country and the investment the Football Association is putting into our academy structures?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may be in his place next Thursday when Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be here and this may be an interesting point for him to raise with them. If he will forgive me, I will not venture too far into this area. I know that the Backbench Business Committee is considering whether to schedule a debate on non-league football. There is widespread interest in the House in football governance and football matters more generally, and perhaps this is something that may be considered on a Back-Bench basis as a priority for debate.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituents in Shrewton have recently drawn my attention to a tweet from the Highways Agency that showed that there were no problems with the A303 following the summer solstice at Stonehenge last weekend. When they checked the camera online themselves, the footage was unavailable. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement soon from the relevant Minister, so that my constituents can clarify whether the Highways Agency is deliberately switching off that important camera, which is a source of data that are highly relevant to decisions in Government?

[Mr Lansley]

This is a sensitive point on the A303, and I can see the point that my hon. Friend is making. I do not know the position, so I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to him.

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

This is not a criticism of the Leader of the House, but can he give us a date or clarify when the Government will honour their promise to introduce legislation to regulate the Football League? We still have an ongoing saga in Coventry, and the latest one is over Birmingham’s ownership. Is it not about time that this issue was cleared up?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he was not making a criticism of me. I will talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the matter, and he heard what I said about questions next Thursday. None the less, my recollection is that Ministers said not that they would bring forward legislation, but that if football governance, the Football Association and other authorities did not take the necessary steps to reform governance in football, they would consider introducing legislation. They did not make a commitment to do so.

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

Professor Elliott’s final report on food safety and security, which was set up following the horsemeat scandal, is expected soon. It will have great implications for shorter food supply chains, traceability and labelling. Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate in Government time on these issues once the report has been adopted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, as my hon. Friend would expect, wait to see what the Elliott review has to say. No doubt my hon. Friends in DEFRA will want to tell the House how the Government propose to respond to it. I cannot promise Government time. As I have often said to the House on the allocation of time in the Chamber, the great majority of Government time has to be devoted to legislation. A significant part of the Government time that was previously available for debate has been handed over to the Backbench Business Committee, so that it can determine where Back Benchers feel the priority lies.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on timely responses to parliamentary questions? Since 4 June, I have tabled 24 parliamentary questions, the majority of which are named day questions on the issue of passports, and not one has had a substantive reply to date. Is the relevant Minister perhaps abroad?

[Mr Lansley]

It will not be long before I report to the House on the performance as regards parliamentary questions in the previous Session. I hope to do that before the summer recess. That may give Members an opportunity to raise points on the issue, not least here at business questions. On the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised with the Home Office, it sounds like the named day requirement was met with a holding answer. I will ask the Department when it can give him the substantive answer for which he is looking.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I have been a long-time advocate for elected mayors, and I was pleased to hear the Chancellor’s comments on the subject in his speech earlier this week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how the Government intend to move forward with that proposal, which would make a significant contribution to delivering our long-term economic plan?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I share the view that elected mayors can make a significant and positive difference; we have seen that, not least in London. The legislation is in place to enable this to happen; the question is whether the political will and public consent are available to push it forward.

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

Does the Leader of the House agree that we need a debate on how Andy Coulson got access to highly sensitive material without proper security vetting? That decision was taken by civil servants who did not even bother to consult the Prime Minister. Do the public not have a right to know just how widespread that despicable practice is across Government?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he makes that sort of accusation. It is not that there was no security clearance, but that developed vetting had not taken place, which is a substantially different process. Security clearance is distinct from developed vetting.

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

In the first three months of this year, car insurance premiums fell dramatically, according to the AA, due to legal reforms introduced by the Ministry of Justice to curtail organised whiplash fraud. May we have a debate on measures that the Government have introduced to help consumers and taxpayers—measures such as freezing fuel duties, raising the personal tax-free allowance, scrapping green taxes and enabling local authorities, such as mine in North West Leicestershire, to freeze council tax for a fifth consecutive year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly goes to points that matter a great deal to people. The fall in insurance premiums has been positive, and it is positive that councils across the country have been supported to freeze council tax, which, in many areas, doubled during the life of the previous Government. Relatively low-income households who pay tax have seen £700 come off their tax bill as a consequence of the coalition Government’s commitment to increasing the personal tax allowance. Under Labour plans, fuel duty was due to increase and escalate, but fuel will now be 20p cheaper than it would have been under those plans. There are so many examples of measures that are making a positive difference to people paying their household bills.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

May we have emergency legislation on compensation and compound interest? We should make Wonga pay out not £2.6 million compensation for unfair practice but, at its own outrageous interest rates of 5,853%, £203 trillion. Perhaps then it would understand the misery that it causes.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the steps that were taken in the previous Session to put a cap on payday lending. We responded to some of the issues. It is important for the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that this perfectly legitimate business is undertaken in a legitimate fashion. When it is not, it is absolutely right that the enforcement action is tough.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has announced that there will be a general debate on the Floor of the House on Thursday 10 July on a topic yet to be announced. Given the recent and important developments in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, the Palestinian Authority area and Egypt, surely the subject needs to be the middle east and north Africa. During such a debate, we could raise concerns about what it says about modern Britain that more of our citizens appear to have signed up for jihad in Syria than have applied to join the Army Reserve.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but that business for the week after next is not only provisional but highly provisional. I will reflect on what he said and make an announcement about the future business next week.

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

In September 2013 the Treasury wrote that Equitable Life policyholders would receive some repayments. My constituents are dying, sadly, and are very elderly, and they have not received a penny. Will the Leader of the House ask a Treasury Minister to come to the House and explain this wholly unacceptable delay?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my right hon. Friends at the Treasury to respond to the hon. Lady on that. I will take an interest and ensure that I see the response. If they need to correspond with Members more generally on the subject, I will ask them to consider that, too.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

There appears to be some slow movement in getting passports to the Salvi family, my surrogate family who are trapped in India. They have now been told that they may have to travel 900 miles to Delhi to the high commission for an interview, even though that is not a legal requirement. Please may we have a statement on the action that the Home Secretary is taking to get all the surrogate children home from India?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady knows from exchanges that we have had here, and from when the Home Secretary and the Minister have been here, intense action is being taken by the Home Office to ensure that it meets the requirements of applicants for passports and travel documents. However, there will be no prejudice to proper rigour in the scrutiny of applications, and of course in some countries that means that people are required to travel to where the appropriate staff are to undertake that scrutiny. I shall ask my colleagues particularly to look at the case raised by the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the responsibility gap faced by British Transport and Home Office police when they find an individual in emotional and mental crisis attempting suicide? They take them to A and E and are told that because the person does not have a mental illness, they will not be admitted. The individual’s life is at great risk and they have committed no crime, yet no one seems to take responsibility for giving them support and assistance during their emotional crisis. Can we look at that gap?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I shall ask the Department of Health and the Home Office to look at that. My recollection is that considerable work is being done looking carefully at the interaction between policing services and NHS services, particularly in sensitive areas relating to mental health and those suffering any kind of mental health problems—[Interruption.] No, I understand, but from the NHS point of view, with what it is presented with, it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between those who have a mental illness and those who have symptoms. It is fair for the hon. Lady, and for us, to ask the NHS to explain how it responds. Saying, “You don’t have an illness, so you are not our problem” is not the way the NHS often responds. It responds by saying, “You are experiencing symptoms”—which people may well be—“and the question is whether they are treatable.” If they are not treatable, they may be something that requires support more from the local authority than from the NHS.

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

May we have a statement on the arrogance of this Government, who have a Prime Minister who dispenses with normal staff vetting procedures, a Chancellor who refuses to debate the merits of an audit of manifestos by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, a Health Secretary who deems it acceptable to make announcements on patient safety to the media and has to be dragged to the House, and a Work and Pensions Secretary who is determined to push through his welfare reforms, regardless of the mounting evidence of their chaos and the untold harm to very vulnerable people in society?

[Mr Lansley]

On every point that the hon. Lady mentions she is completely wrong. I shall not go through them all, but to suggest that the Prime Minister somehow dispensed with security vetting is completely wrong. The hon. Lady can read the Leveson report, which sets out very clearly that civil servants, not the Prime Minister, were responsible for that decision, so her point was completely unfair. She referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who made a written ministerial statement to the House; that is informing the House.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Further to the earlier remarks by the Leader of the House, may we have a debate on better regulation and the payday lender parasites, Wonga, whose sending of threatening letters from non-existent law firms to 45,000 customers is nothing short of a disgrace?

[Mr Lansley]

I agree; it was disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said to other Members about discussing with my colleagues at the Treasury how they might inform the House about the response to that situation. Of course, the case was announced only yesterday by the Financial Conduct Authority, so we will have to see what Ministers’ views are on the action that has been taken.

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

The Leader of the House should not be celebrating a 0.3% reduction in childhood obesity when one third of kids are leaving our primary schools overweight or obese. Can we have an urgent debate with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the universal credit programme, which has cost millions of pounds but has not yet reached 6,000 people?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Lady will have heard me say that the latest figures on childhood obesity are a small step in the right direction and, after years in which it was increasing, a very welcome one. It is one step on what needs to be a very long journey to reverse probably two decades of increasing childhood obesity. Regarding a debate on universal credit, the hon. Lady will have noted that the Liaison Committee has set down a debate on the implementation of universal credit for estimates day on Monday week.

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

In my constituency, Park End medical centre, Skelton medical centre and walk-in centre, Guisborough hospital minor injuries unit, and East Cleveland hospital’s minor injuries unit are being closed. After being dragged here on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Health responded to my question by saying that Ministers had already met me about this subject. That is not the case at all. May we have a debate about Health Ministers’ openness and transparency, so that we can discuss how they deal with Members of this House and whether the comments they make are factually correct?

[Mr Lansley]

Ministers at the Department of Health make immense efforts to ensure that they respond fully and accurately to Members of this House and keep the House informed. We are about to hear from the Secretary of State for Health on a very important matter. However, I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friends, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, to discuss with him the constituency issues he raises.

NHS Investigations (Jimmy Savile)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

11:25

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Jimmy Savile investigations.

This morning, 28 investigations into Savile were published, including two larger reports on Leeds infirmary and Broadmoor hospital and 26 smaller reports on other institutions. I know that this House and, indeed, the whole country will share a deep sense of revulsion at what they reveal: a litany of disturbing accounts of rape and sexual abuse committed by Savile on vulnerable children and adults over a period of decades.

At the time, the victims who spoke up were not believed, and it is important today that we all publicly recognise the truth of what they have said, but it is a profoundly uncomfortable truth. As a nation at that time, we held Savile in our affection as a somewhat eccentric national treasure with a strong commitment to charitable causes. Today’s reports show that, in reality, he was a sickening and prolific sexual abuser who repeatedly exploited the trust of a nation for his own vile purposes.

The report published by Leeds infirmary today reveals that Savile was a predatory porter who abused and raped patients without scruple. Sixty people reported abuse to the investigation. One of his teenage victims believed that she was pregnant as a result of his abuse. Two witnesses told the investigation Savile claimed to have had jewellery made from glass eyes taken from bodies in the mortuary. Other reported behaviour is too horrific to recount in detail to this House, but is set out in full in the reports published today.

Savile was also an opportunistic sexual predator at Broadmoor. The investigation concludes that at least five individuals, and possibly more, were sexually abused by Savile. Inexplicably, Savile was allowed to watch female patients as they stripped naked for bathing.

There were fewer incidents reported in the other 26 investigations, but there are strong indications that they were consistent with a wider pattern of offending. I have placed the reports of all the investigations in the House of Commons Library. Five investigations are ongoing and will report later this year.

Today’s reports will shake this House and our country to the core. Savile was a callous, opportunistic, wicked predator who abused and raped individuals, many of them patients and young people, who expected and had a right to expect to be safe. His actions span five decades, from the 1960s to 2010. The family favourite loved by millions courted popularity and used it to perpetrate and cover up his own evil acts.

I and, I am sure, the whole House will want to pay tribute to all the victims who came forward to talk about their experiences. It took great courage for them to relive their often extremely distressing and disturbing experiences.

The reports paint a terrible picture, as time and again victims were ignored or, if they were not, little or no action was taken. The systems in place to protect people were either too weak or were ignored. People and institutions turned a blind eye.

Today, I want to apologise on behalf of the Government and the NHS to all the victims who were abused by Savile in NHS-run institutions. We let them down badly and however long ago it may have been, many of them are still reliving the pain they went through. If we cannot undo the past, I hope that honesty and transparency about what happened can at least alleviate some of the suffering. It is the least we owe them.

Today, changes to the way that we guard against abuse would make it much harder for someone such as Savile to perpetrate these crimes for so long. The safeguarding system, as the Leeds report makes clear, has been much improved over the past 30 years. The landmark Children Act 1989 enshrined a child’s right to protection from abuse. The first child sex offenders register was established in 1997, and 1999 saw legislation to prevent sex offenders from working with children. Criminal Records Bureau checks and the Disclosure and Barring Service have provided further protection. The Children Act 2004 requires NHS bodies to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and to sit on the local safeguarding children board. NHS England published its safeguarding framework in 2013.

Savile was, however, never convicted of any offence, so this safeguarding system depends on much better awareness by professionals and the public and a much heightened vigilance against such abuse than there was in the past. Although that is reassuring to an extent, we cannot be complacent. Today, I am writing to all the system leaders in the NHS—NHS England, the NHS Trust Development Authority, Monitor and the Care Quality Commission—to ask them to ensure that they and all trusts review safeguarding arrangements in the light of the reports, and to ensure that they are confident about patient safety.  For its part, the Department of Health has accepted all the specific recommendations assigned to it in the Broadmoor report.

There are some painfully obvious lessons for the system as a whole. First, we must never give people the kind of access that Savile enjoyed to wards and patients without proper checks, whoever that person may be. Secondly, if people are abusive, staff should feel supported to challenge them, whoever that person may be, and take swift action. Thirdly, where patients report abuse, they need to be listened to, whatever their age, whatever their condition, and there needs to be proper investigation of what they report. It is deeply shocking that so few people felt that they could speak up and even more shocking that no one listened to those who did speak up. That is now changing in the NHS, but we have a long way to go.

In ensuring appropriate measures, we must not hinder the extraordinary contribution of thousands of volunteers and fundraisers working in the NHS every day. They are the opposite of Savile and we need to ensure that their remarkable contribution is sustained.

In parallel with this NHS work, the Department for Education is overseeing investigations into Savile’s activity in care settings, based on the same tranche of information that led to the smaller NHS investigations. There are other ongoing investigations by the police into allegations of historic child sexual exploitation. I hope this reassures the House of the seriousness of this issue and our response to it. The Department will also work with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood to ensure that information is swiftly passed on.

I conclude by paying tribute to Kate Lampard and her team. When patient safety is the issue, speed is vital. These investigations have swiftly and effectively brought to light vital issues that must be addressed. She will be publishing her conclusions and recommendations on this scandal later this year, as will the national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people. This report will bring together the Government’s wider work to eradicate violence against children and vulnerable people.

But today, above all, we should remember the victims of Savile. They were brave. They have been vindicated. He was a coward. He has been disgraced. The system failed to prevent him from abusing. It failed to act when people spoke up. We must not allow history to repeat itself. I commend this statement to the House.

11:35

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for notice and sight of his statement. I commend him for the way he introduced it to the House and welcome everything he said. The reports published today are truly disturbing, and as sickening as any ever presented to the House. How a celebrity DJ and predatory sex offender came to have unfettered access to vulnerable patients across the NHS, and gold-plated keys to its highest security hospital, surely ranks as one of the worst failures of patient and public protection our country has ever seen. It raises questions of the most profound kind about how victims of abuse are treated, how systems for protecting vulnerable children and adults work and the nature of celebrity and society’s relationship with it.

The Secretary of State was right to begin with an apology—I support him in making it—to the hundreds of people who were appallingly failed and whose lives have been haunted ever since. Our first thought must be with them today. They had a right to look to the NHS as a place of safety and sanctuary, but they were cruelly let down by the very institutions that were meant to offer protection. As one of Savile’s victims put it:

“It was like another insult. I’m in a top security hospital and someone has got to me again. When does it stop?”

Today’s statement will have evoked memories of the most painful kind for them, so will the Secretary of State ensure that all Savile’s victims have full and direct access to all the counselling and other support they will need?

One of the main purposes of this process of inquiry should have been to give all the victims the opportunity to be heard, but the Secretary of State might know that there are reports today in the Yorkshire Post that one person who tried to come forward was at first ignored in October 2012. Will he assure us that all reasonable steps have been taken by those preparing these reports to help victims come forward and tell their story, including those who might have been ignored when they first tried?

Many of Savile’s victims have suffered severe financial loss as a result of the challenges they have faced. I understand that claims for compensation will in the first instance draw on Jimmy Savile’s estate. Has there been an assessment of whether the estate’s funds will be sufficient to meet all claims? Given what has been revealed today and the abject failures of public bodies, should not the Government now consider allocating public funds to ensure that all the people damaged by Savile are properly compensated and supported?

Reading the report, it is not at all clear to me that a proper process has yet been put in place to hold people who failed in their public duties to account. If evidence is revealed in any of these reports that shows that any person still working in the NHS or the Department of Health knowingly facilitated these crimes, will the Secretary of State assure us that they will now face the full weight of the law and that those who were negligent in respect of their public duties will also be held fully to account?

It is incomprehensible how this could have been allowed to happen over 55 years. Although it relates to a different era, there are serious lessons that we can learn, given that abuse continues in our health and care system today. Let me turn to those. The first area of concern relates to how victims of abuse are treated, particularly young people or people in the mental health care system. Sadly, there are still far too many instances of abuse in our care system and in mental health settings, and the real figure is likely to be higher because of under-reporting. Will the Secretary of State consider what more needs to be done to give people the confidence to come forward and the reassurance that they will be listened to? Is there a case for more training for staff in dealing with allegations of abuse?

The second area of concern relates to how public bodies carry out vetting and barring arrangements, make public appointments and manage their relationship with celebrity. Hospitals across the country have increasingly sophisticated fundraising operations and links with celebrity endorsers. Will the Secretary of State accept the Broadmoor report’s recommendation that no celebrity should be appointed to an executive position or given privileged access to a hospital or its patients and that they should be fully vetted if appointed to a non-executive position? More broadly, is there now a case for a code of conduct setting out the appropriate relationship that the NHS should have with celebrity or business backers?

On vetting and barring, figures obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) show that the number of people barred from working with children as a result of committing a sexual offence against a child has dropped by 10,000, or 75%, in the past three years. These extremely worrying figures have come about as a result of changes to the vetting and barring arrangements. This raises the concern that there are people working in our health and care system now who may pose a risk to children. Will the Secretary of State look again at this issue, consult the Home Secretary, and urgently report back to the House on why these figures have dropped by so much in such a short space of time, and on whether they believe that the current child protection regime is strong enough?

The question arises of whether this process of inquiry is a sufficient response to the scale of these atrocious crimes. It is hard to draw a clear picture and consistent recommendations from 28 separate reports and all the other inquiries that are still ongoing in schools, care homes, the BBC and the police. I, too, pay tribute to the work of Kate Lampard in assuring the quality of the reports published today, and we wait for her second phase of work, but questions remain about their independence given that each hospital has, in effect, investigated itself. There is also a question of whether this needs to be more independent of Government.

The Broadmoor report raises serious questions about the conduct of civil servants and Ministers in the Department of Health in how Savile came to be appointed to the Broadmoor taskforce. In evidence to the inquiry, the then Minister describes the main objective of Savile’s appointment as follows:

“The principal question was can Government break this hold that the Prison Officers Association has on the hospital.”

She went on to say:

“This task force was dreamed up and seemed like a very good idea and step forward Jimmy Savile who knew the place backwards and was more than happy to volunteer his time to do this. And we were happy to do it.”

That paints a picture of chaos in the Department and a complete absence of due process for such a serious appointment. This is an extraordinary revelation. Although there is no suggestion that any Minister knew of any sexual misconduct, it points to the need for a further process of independent inquiry so that we all, as Ministers and former Ministers, can learn the lessons of what happened, but also draw together the threads of the multiple ongoing inquiries. It simply cannot be left for Savile’s victims to try to pull together the details of these investigations.

As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has said, there is now a clear case for a proper, overarching, independent review led by child protection experts into why there was such large-scale institutional failure to stop these abhorrent crimes. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State gave this proposal careful consideration. I finish by assuring him of our full support in helping him to establish the full truth of why abuse on this scale was allowed to happen for so long.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the shadow Health Secretary for the constructive tone of his comments. Many of the suggestions he has made are very sensible. We will take them away and look at them, but I will go through a number of them now. First, we will indeed make sure that all Savile’s victims get the counselling they need. I think that it has been made available to them, but it is absolutely right to double-check that they are getting every bit of help they need and that we are taking all reasonable steps.

I hope that what has happened today will be, in its own way, another landmark for all victims of sexual abuse in giving them the confidence that we are changing, not just as an NHS but as a society, into being much better at listening when people come forward with these very serious allegations. It hits you time and again when reading these reports how many people did not speak up at the time because they thought that no one would believe them. We are not going to change that culture overnight, but we have to be a society that listens to the small person—the person who might get forgotten and does not feel they are important in the system.

On the claims for compensation, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the first draw for those claims will come from the Savile estate. I hope I can reassure him, however, that, as we have said, the Government will underwrite this so that if there are any claims that are not able to be met by the estate we finance them from the public purse. We think it is important that we should do that, although Savile’s estate is the first place to start, for obvious reasons.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if there is evidence that people have criminally neglected claims that were made at the time or behaved inappropriately—even if it is not a matter for the law and they behaved in a way that could make them subject to disciplinary procedures in NHS organisations—that should be addressed. We will urge all NHS organisations to look carefully at anyone who is mentioned in the reports. Of course, the police will, naturally, look at the evidence against any individuals, who of course have the right to due process, which everyone in the House would accept.

On the specific point about the behaviour of one Minister and what it suggested about the motivation for Savile’s approval for his job at Broadmoor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was Secretary of State at the time, has said that that behaviour would be indefensible now and that it would have been indefensible at the time. I agree with him. Everyone must be held accountable for the actions they took.

We are doing a great deal to make sure that all NHS staff are trained to feel more confident about speaking out. The Mid Staffs whistleblower Helene Donnelly is now working with Health Education England to see what needs to change in the training of NHS staff in order to change that culture.

On the new disclosure and barring scheme, we are already doing work to examine the reason for the drop in the number of people who are being barred from working with children. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is looking into that. I have given this a lot of thought and it is important to say that in the current environment, were we to have another Savile, it is likely that the disclosure and barring scheme would bar him from working with children and in trusts, but that is not certain because he was never convicted of a crime. The Criminal Records Bureau checks would not have stopped that, but it is possible for the disclosure and barring scheme to prevent people from working with children and vulnerable adults even if they have not committed a crime. For example, their employment track record may show that they were dismissed for doing things that raised suspicions. It is also important to make the point—I think everyone in the House will understand this—that it is not possible to legislate to stop all criminal vile activity. What we depend on for the disclosure and barring scheme to work is a culture in which the public and patients feel able to speak out and staff listen when they do so, in order that these things surface much more quickly.

Finally, the question of whether any further inquiries are necessary will, of course, be considered. The first step is to let Kate Lampard do her full report. At this stage, she has not drawn together all the different inquiries and tried to draw lessons from the system as a whole. I asked her to do two things. The first was to verify independently that the reports of NHS organisations were of the necessary quality, and I think she has done that superbly. The second stage of her work is to see what lessons can be drawn from the system as a whole. We need to hear what she has to say about that and, indeed, what the Department for Education and the BBC learn from their reports, and then we will come to a conclusion about whether any further investigations are needed.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

May I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the victims? They were not silent. What today’s reports show is that very many people witnessed—even directly condoned—some deeply inappropriate behaviour. How could it ever be acceptable for a celebrity to be able to watch female patients showering? Will the Secretary of State join me in sending a message to NHS staff that they should always raise concerns if they witness such behaviour and that they will be protected if they do so?

[Mr Hunt]

I am absolutely happy to do that. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The NHS needs to move to a system where it is the norm rather than the exception to report, and where NHS staff feel comfortable that reporting any concerns is an absolutely normal part of their job. She is right to say that one of the most disturbing things in the reports is the clear evidence that some people helped Savile in what he did—for example, that people were escorted to his private room in Broadmoor—which is very shocking. That is why it is very important that everyone is vigilant. I totally agree with what she said.

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

The only people who emerge with any credit are the victims, and we need to support them. However, I was slightly stung by the Secretary of State’s comment about the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the actions of the Minister—it was Edwina Currie, if I remember rightly—were inappropriate then, as they would be now, will he apologise for his stewardship of the Department at the time, or will the Secretary of State look at the Minister’s conduct and come back to the House to explain how it was possible?

[Mr Hunt]

I hope that I have gone some way to meet the hon. Lady’s concerns because, on behalf of the Government and the NHS, I have offered a full apology to all the victims for what happened, and I have accepted that there were failures at many levels. It is very important to say that the reports show that there was no evidence that Ministers or officials were aware of any sexual abuse by Savile. I pointed to the comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe because I wanted to make it clear that this Government are not defending actions which, as he has said, were indefensible then and would be indefensible now.

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

I commend my right hon. Friend for his measured statement. Indeed, I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s comments about joining our call for an overarching inquiry, because this is the tip of the iceberg. There are still ongoing inquiries to do with Savile in the NHS, 11 local authorities, care homes and others.

Specifically on the subject of victims, there is something that the Secretary of State can do to help immediately. So many victims have very bravely come forward after suffering trauma over many decades and many are still calling the ChildLine and NAPAC—the National Association for People Abused in Childhood—helplines. However, for too many, the therapeutic support that they need to help them through such a particularly difficult time is absolutely not there. Police and health professionals have come to me to say that they know such people, but cannot do anything for them. With the resources in the NHS, the Secretary of State can help now.

[Mr Hunt]

I commend my hon. Friend for his campaigning for vulnerable children over many years. The letter I sent to NHS England this morning asks it to make sure that all the lessons are learned from the reports, and it includes the very clear suggestion—I want the NHS to interpret my letter in this way—that it should ensure that it commissions the support needed for children in these circumstances so that they get the very support that is necessary. This is not just about encouraging people to speak out; it is about making sure that when they do, they feel listened to and supported.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for his considered response. In relation to the scale of the abuse—with ages ranging from five to 75, and involving 28 hospitals—lessons need to be learned about the systematic failure not just within the NHS, but within other institutions. Will the Health Secretary have discussions with the Cabinet Office and others to make sure that appropriate lessons are learned?

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking a cross-Government approach—across a range of Departments, but particularly the Department for Education and the Home Office—and that the Government as a whole will draw the lessons from this whole horrific series of episodes to make sure that we have a joined-up approach.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I agree with the Secretary of State that our first thought has to be for the victims, and that in future we must listen to the powerless and not block inquiries. If we go back to 2011—before Savile died—an American journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, was banned from coming to the UK to investigate child abuse, including by Jimmy Savile. Even more recently, she was arrested at the airport on 5 June, while coming to an inquiry. Will the Secretary of State speak to his colleague the Minister for Security and Immigration to ask why somebody in the UK Border Agency seems to be aiming to inhibit one of the inquiries?

[Mr Hunt]

I am afraid that I do not know the details of that particular case, but I will look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Is not one of the wider problems our perceptions of how a sexual predator looks and acts? When men like Savile are arrested, the usual reaction is shock that such a nice man could abuse children, but sex predators are not men in dirty raincoats; they come from all walks of life and all professions. That perception means that children are not being heard. Will the Secretary of State make preventing as well as detecting child sexual abuse a public health priority? It is only through a better informed public, more aware of how predators such as Savile behave, that we will be able to protect children from abuse.

[Mr Hunt]

I completely agree, and that is one of the big lessons. The shadow Home Secretary was absolutely right to say that this issue raises serious questions about the nature of celebrity in our society. One of the reasons that totally inexcusable things happened—such as being given the keys to Broadmoor—was that somehow on the basis of Savile’s image people made wrong assumptions about him. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the things that will change as a result of this investigation is that people will be more willing to challenge those who previously were not challenged. But there is a long way to go.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I totally agree with the Secretary of State’s belief that there should be more openness, and an increased sense of need to report concerns, but is he satisfied that, particularly with regard to NHS staff who may report concerns or whistleblowers, there is enough protection within the system to encourage more people to be more open?

[Mr Hunt]

No, I am not. That is why earlier this week we asked Sir Robert Francis to do a follow-up review to his public inquiry to determine what else needs to be done to create a culture of openness and transparency in the NHS. We have come a very long way as a society in terms of our understanding, but there is more work to be done. It is also very important, as I said in my statement—I know everyone would agree with this—that we do not undermine the brilliant work done by volunteers in hospitals and that we do not create a kind of bureaucratic morass that makes it impossible for that really important work to be done. However, I know we can do better than we are at the moment and important lessons need to be learned.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has been very gracious in his apology given that he was not Secretary of State at the time. Might I make one further practical suggestion? Will he speak to the Prime Minister about perhaps appointing a Minister to co-ordinate all these reports across the public institutions?

[Mr Hunt]

I reassure the hon. Lady that that responsibility lies with the Home Secretary, and the Home Office has a cross-governmental committee that will bring together all the lessons from all the reports. My first priority is to ensure that we are doing everything we can to make NHS patients safe, but there are much broader lessons to be learned. That is being led by the Home Office.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has happened is absolutely abhorrent and that it sends out a strong message to everyone in society that even a celebrity is not above the law of the land? May I also praise the work of Kate Lampard and her team in bringing this forward?

[Mr Hunt]

That is absolutely right. Celebrities have never been above the law of the land, but what is clear from the report is that even though that is the case legally, in practical terms they were above the law because they were able to get away with things for a very long time that ordinary people would not have been able to get away with. That is why this is such a big moment of reflection for us. I know that everyone in the House will want to think hard about what we need to do to change that culture.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

We know that Savile was well regarded by many politicians; by way of example, he was friends with Cyril Smith and appeared in a Liberal party political broadcast in the 1970s, and had friends in high places. Surely an overarching inquiry into child sex abuse would help us to understand the political networks to which Savile belonged.

[Mr Hunt]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned a lot on these issues. We have not ruled out anything, but we want first to draw together the lessons for the NHS and across Government as quickly as possible. One of the important benefits of the way in which we have proceeded so far is that, because it is an investigation and not a public inquiry, we can get to the truth relatively quickly. However, we will certainly look at the cross-governmental lessons.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

As a former member of the medical staff at Stoke Mandeville hospital and now as the Member representing Broadmoor hospital, I have many questions, but let me concentrate on one. In appendix 2A part V, there is a letter about Broadmoor from Jimmy Savile to the Department of Health. It is headed “National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville”, and it is signed “Dr Jimmy Savile”. Indeed, the content of the letter is deeply unprofessional and remarkable, and it was copied on to a series of people, including the then Secretary of State. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that each of these individuals has been investigated in respect of their response to this correspondence, as I cannot believe that people could have received it without being deeply concerned about this vile man’s involvement in a high-security hospital?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. We received the reports only this week, but I will certainly take this away with me and look into exactly the point he makes.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me early advance notice of the report relating to St Catherine’s hospital in Birkenhead. Much more importantly, may I associate myself with the apology that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my constituent and others? He will know that that hospital has been bulldozed and that we now have a fine community hospital. To bulldoze these practices within the NHS, will the Secretary of State consider and come back to me later on these two issues? First, it took my constituent 48 years before she was believed and 50 years before she received an apology. What steps are we going to take to ensure that justice is provided much more quickly? Secondly, Jimmy Savile was escorted around St Cath’s Birkenhead by officials, who witnessed him jumping into bed with a young patient and who thought it funny. All the rules in the world provide some defence, but how do we get people to exercise judgment—whatever the rules say, whatever the circumstances and whoever does it—and say that this behaviour is not acceptable?

[Mr Hunt]

I would like to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments; I share his disbelief and shock that it has taken so long. In some ways justice will never be done, because Savile died before it could be served on him, which is one of the biggest tragedies of all. I agree: there was a major lack of judgment, some of it because of the different attitudes prevailing at those times. One of the big differences today is that we make links between what is disgusting but not illegal behaviour and potential abuse in a way that did not happen in those days. I want to share with the right hon. Gentleman what most shocked me personally in the reports, and it was the way in which Savile interfered and abused people who had just come out of operations and were recovering from them. The fact that Savile was able to do that, without being supervised, is shocking and when those people spoke up about what had happened, they were not believed. That is one of so many lessons that need to be learned; I know that everyone wants to learn them.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

It is clear from the Portsmouth report that there were incidents with no corroborative evidence of the abuse. In one local case, the complainant was unconscious at the time of the alleged incident and learned of it from a hospital cleaner who witnessed it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that “no proof” is not the same as “it did not happen”, that his welcome words of apology should apply to all those who think they may have been abused and that we need a clear process for how such unprovable complaints can be dealt with?

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely right. The case that my hon. Friend mentions was a real tragedy because that person suffered very real psychological harm in subsequent years as a result of what they were told by the cleaner. There are two points. First, we cannot necessarily corroborate, but we can see a pattern. What is impressive about these investigations is the fact that the investigators say time after time that although it is not possible to prove that these things happened, they believe that they did happen because the evidence was credible. On one or two occasions, they say that they are not sure, but in the vast majority of cases, they thought that the evidence was credible. Secondly, there will continue to be times when offences are alleged, but it is not possible to prove them in a court of law. The big lesson to be learnt is that that does not mean no action should be taken. We must do what it takes to protect patients.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s statement. Does he agree that the fear of litigation by NHS practitioners appears to be one of the reasons why the system does not lend itself to the provision of a good listening ear, and, indeed, one of the reasons why a compassionate response to that listening is not always forthcoming? What practical steps can be taken to ensure that, at an early stage, practitioners actually listen to complaints?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that we need to change the balance in the NHS, so that the safest thing for people to do if they want to avoid litigation is to report concerns rather than sitting on them. That is an interesting lesson that has been learnt in other industries, such as the airline industry, and I hope that the follow-up review by Sir Robert Francis will help us to understand it better.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for what he has said about the reports. In his statement, he referred to the importance of the changes that have come about over the past few years, both under this Government—and there are more to come—and under the last Government. Many of those changes have derived from advice given by specialist police forces or by teams within police forces.

The Association of Chief Police Officers runs courses, and collects expertise for the purpose of those courses. Its aim is to catch the individuals concerned, to help those who have been attacked by them and to monitor those individuals after they have been put on the sex offenders list. Does the Secretary of State think that it would be useful to ask ACPO whether it could provide any more advice for the Government to consider? I know that the Metropolitan police’s Jigsaw team is currently considering changes that would help it to monitor and control sex offenders once they have been detected and put on the list.

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. Of course we need to co-operate very closely with the police service, and the Home Secretary is doing a huge amount of work to establish what needs to be done to increase conviction rates for sexual offences. The point for the NHS to consider, however, is that the disclosure and barring scheme will only work properly if NHS organisers comply with it—as they are obliged to do—and report incidents, because that enables other NHS organisations to find out about them. I am not satisfied that the levels of compliance are as high as they should be.

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

I feel that our concern for victims must lead us to ask whether the actions of Ministers, or managers in the NHS, caused the pain that they suffered. That is one of the things that we can still do. Beyond compensation, there is accountability, and there must be accountability.

I must tell the Secretary of State that I do not think it was enough for him to say that behaviour was indefensible. Colleagues of his were Ministers at the time of that behaviour, and they must be brought to book for their actions. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham): we should focus on the fact that that appointment of a disc jockey to a hospital position was not appropriate. In some respects, that individual would have carried more credibility because of his appointment, and that is why I think that accountability is important.

I also think that, in future, children and vulnerable patients must be protected from certain people who have access to wards. It is not good enough to talk about bureaucracy. Volunteers, celebrity fundraisers and business backers must be subject to checks before being given access to hospitals and to wards, and they must expect to be subject to those checks. The present arrangements must change.

[Mr Hunt]

We do need more robust checks. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that I have apologised to all the victims and have said that if some of the reasons given in the reports for Jimmy Savile’s appointment to one position were as the reports claim, that was indefensible. Moreover, the Secretary of State who was in office at the time has said that it was indefensible. I think that that is accountability.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has been good enough to apologise on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government and the NHS. Given that Jimmy Savile’s celebrity status was largely due to his employment by the BBC, are we not owed a big apology by the BBC, now that the report has been published?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Today’s report is about the NHS and the BBC report is ongoing, as is the report being done by the Department for Education and the work being done by other Departments. We have to wait for the BBC to make its own statement on the matter, but my priority now is NHS patients, and the reason that I wanted to go at speed on this was to make sure that any changes we need to make now, we do so.

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

The Secretary of State says, quite understandably, that we cannot undo the past, but there are several people culpable in this affair who are still drawing substantial NHS pensions. Why does he not consider docking their pensions, as a consequence for their behaviour and as a clear warning to others?

[Mr Hunt]

I do not rule that out at all. If someone has behaved in a way that is in breach of either the law or the regulations that were in place at the hospital in which they worked, and there is a way to have legal redress such that things like pensions can be docked, I think that they should face the full consequences of that.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Child sexual abuse is always abhorrent. The victims are always innocent and nobody should be above the law. At the beginning of this month, six Members and I wrote to the Home Secretary—now we are supported by a further 104 MPs—requesting an investigation by an independent panel into at least eight cases of child sexual abuse going back over 30 years, where the evidence has been lost or destroyed by the police, by Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and by other agencies, and where the cases have therefore been stalled or abandoned altogether. To date, we have had no reply, so can I ask the Secretary of State to encourage the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary, and anyone who else who might be moved to take the matter on, to do so, and accept that such an independent investigation is essential to search out the truth and to make sure that action is taken after that?

[Mr Hunt]

I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that we have a Home Office committee, chaired by the Home Office Minister from her own party—the Minister for Crime Prevention, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—that is drawing together all the lessons from Savile across all Departments. It is then going to take that view as to what needs to happen next to prevent child sexual abuse, and I would like to reassure her that the Home Office and the Government as a whole have no higher priority than that.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Jimmy Savile visited the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle on a number of occasions—generally, it appears, around the time of the great north run. The Newcastle hospital trust’s investigation concludes that nothing untoward happened and there was constant supervision, but it refers to an NSPCC investigation that had access to other witnesses, which suggests that unsupervised access did occur. That is obviously a matter of huge concern for everyone who put their trust in the RVI, whether as a patient or as a child. Is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) right? It is not up to them to try to draw what could be horrendous conclusions from these somewhat conflicting reports. Do we not need an overarching independent inquiry?

[Mr Hunt]

We are having an overarching independent inquiry—that is what Kate Lampard is doing—but on whether we need to have further inquiries, we need to wait until we get the response, which we are hoping for this autumn, because at the moment, we have published individual reports, but we have not drawn any wider lessons for the NHS system-wide. One of the things that I hope will be a consequence of today is that if there are any victims who were abused at the RVI, they will use today as some encouragement to come forward. I have given instructions and I am absolutely clear as Health Secretary that I want every single one of the concerns of anyone who comes forward to be investigated thoroughly—as thoroughly as all the ones that are tragically coming to light today.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is astonishing that this catalogue of abuse was allowed to happen and that no action was taken at the time. I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement, both for the way he has delivered it and for the content, but can he elucidate for the House what specific changes he foresees in legislation, although legislation has moved forward, and any specific changes to procedures that now need to be taken as a result of the publication today?

[Mr Hunt]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not try to predict Kate Lampard’s recommendations before she makes them, but I think the obvious question to ask is whether we have the procedures in place that ensure that someone like Savile would not be given the keys to an institution in the way that he was. I do not believe that would happen today. My understanding of the way that NHS organisations work is that it would be impossible for someone to be given the freedom of a trust in the way that he was at Broadmoor, but I do not want to take that as a fact. I want Kate Lampard to look at that, so that we can be absolutely sure that it would not happen. I think the other obvious area for her to consider is the functioning of the disclosure and barring scheme, and to make sure that it really is set up in a way that would make it more likely for us to catch someone like Savile. Again, I think it is likely that he would be caught by the DBS, but I would like Kate Lampard to look at that and give me her views.

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

I am not sure that I share the Secretary of State’s view about Jimmy Savile being caught by the procedures now in place through the DBS, but I want to ask him this: under changes introduced by this coalition, a regular volunteer at a children’s hospital—acting, for example, as a reading volunteer on the ward—will not require a Criminal Records Bureau check, and given the harm done by the revelations about Jimmy Savile, I am sure that will cause concern to millions of parents around this country, so does the Secretary of State share that concern, especially in the light of the NSPCC’s comments this week that the pendulum has swung too far towards the abuser by the changes that his Government have introduced?

[Mr Hunt]

I do not agree with that. The CRB checks that were introduced by the last Labour Government were a very important step forward when they started in 2002, but what is also important, as I am sure Labour recognises, is that they have limitations, because they identify whether someone has a criminal record. Jimmy Savile was never convicted of a criminal offence, so CRB checks alone would not have stopped this abuse. That is why we need a broader system, which is what the disclosure and barring scheme is intended to be. It is deliberately set up as something that is risk-profiled, so the higher the risk, the higher the standard of investigation, but that is one of the things that Kate Lampard will look at and we need to listen to what she says when she gives us her final report.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I was grateful for the opportunity early this morning to look at the thorough report of Jimmy Savile’s visits to Odstock hospital. At Odstock, although it seemed that Mr Savile visited, the report concluded that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. However, one recommendation was that the Department of Health issue national guidance on VIP policy and VIP visits. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will look at that, so that all hospitals, including the successor to Odstock, Salisbury district hospital, can have a reliable policy in place?

[Mr Hunt]

I think that is a very sensible suggestion. I want to wait until Kate Lampard gives her final report in September, so I do not want to pre-empt what she says, but certainly, one of the blindingly obvious things that jumps out at us from these reports is that too generous treatment was given to someone on the basis of that celebrity status, and we definitely need to learn lessons. As I am sure my hon. Friend would appreciate from his own constituents’ point of view, the fact that there is no evidence of abuse sadly does not mean that there was no abuse, and that is why it is really important for us to remember that there may well be many people who are not mentioned today who have been quietly suffering for many years. I hope today will give them encouragement to come forward.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the report from Wythenshawe hospital this morning. For me, the shocking revelation that I noted was that it was an open secret among patients, as early as 1962, that this man was doing what he was doing—and I quote:

“a dirty old man up to no good”.

If there is one good thing that can come from this for the nation, it is that we implore all institutions, both governmental and in civil society, to keep their child protection, safeguarding and recruitment selection procedures up to date and under review.

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and touches on a matter that we have not touched on so far this morning. Recruitment is a very important area that we must get right in this process, and I wholeheartedly agree with what he said.

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

Today will be an emotional day for victims and their families as the report is published. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how victims have been supported and informed about the publication, particularly today and in the run-up to today, and how they will be kept informed as subsequent actions are carried forward? In particular, what efforts have been made to inform and support those who are most vulnerable, such as those with learning difficulties or who are severely mentally unwell, perhaps as a result of the abuse they suffered many years ago?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue, and the guidance that I have issued to NHS organisations today makes it clear that I want to give maximum protection not just to the victims identified in these reports, but to people going forward. That is the least we owe them.

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

Has the Secretary of State received intelligence, or does he have a suspicion, that victims of Savile were frightened to come forward because he enjoyed powerful political protection?

[Mr Hunt]

I do not believe there is any evidence of that in the reports, but there is a lot of evidence that people felt that they would not be believed because of Savile’s celebrity status. Part of that celebrity status was his connections in high places, and that is part of the myth that we need to puncture as a result of today’s report.

bill presented

Pension schemes

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Danny Alexander, Secretary Vince Cable and Steve Webb, presented a Bill to make provision about pension schemes, including provision designed to encourage arrangements that offer people different levels of certainty in retirement or that involve different ways of sharing or pooling risk.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 30 June, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN ).

First World War (Commemoration)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

12:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the programme of commemoration for the First World War.

One hundred years ago, a poor scrap of a man who was already dying of tuberculosis fired two shots into Archduke Franz Ferdinand, his wife Sophie, and their unborn child. Meanwhile back here, the following afternoon a debate on foreign affairs happened to be scheduled, although Hansard records that hon. Members were well into proceedings before anybody mentioned Sarajevo. Eventually, an obscure Liberal, Sir Joseph Walton, raised in passing reports of an assassination he had read about in the morning papers. By the time Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey got to his feet shortly before 7 o’clock, lazy summer ears appeared to be pricking at a city that then, as now, few Britons could accurately place on the map. Although next day the assassination got Asquith to the Dispatch Box, he was there to eulogise not to debate the geopolitical consequences of Gavrilo Princip’s chaotic street corner encounter with a man who, had he lived or died that day, was fated to change the course of history.

From 28 June to 4 August is 37 days. To overplay contemporary events on a similar time frame is to remind people in positions such as ours, and in significant countries such as this, of the solemn responsibility they hold. The first lesson I draw is the frightening speed with which peace, civilisation and a functioning rules-based system can descend into chaos.

I am privileged to lead our second debate on this subject. By common consent, the first debate on 7 November was of high quality, as was their lordships’ debate on this subject yesterday. From the luminaries seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to further such debate today. This debate is well timed since the 100th anniversary of the Archduke’s assassination this weekend falls on Armed Forces day, when right hon. and hon. Members will celebrate the men and women of today’s armed forces. I am delighted that this year that celebration will be centred on the great and historic city of Stirling.

I underscore “celebration” to contrast with commemoration, and let it be understood that the great war is cause for the latter, and assuredly not cause for the former. The Government pegged out the centenary in 2012 when the Prime Minister announced the UK’s approach in October that year at the Imperial War museum. The guiding lights are remembrance, youth and education, with the Government creating a framework for a national conversation about the war within which people can explore its causes, conduct and consequences for themselves. Linked to that, the public will not have an official narrative foisted on them. We should not confuse the role of historians and pedagogues with that of politicians. The job of government is to spark the national conversation, not dictate its terms. Historians have a responsibility to rigorously and dispassionately examine the facts, contest the evidence, and offer interpretation. Through open challenge and debate, the credibility of that interpretation is tested, and we glimpse the truth.

I know that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who will speak for the Opposition, agrees with that because he told me last week that he was about to speak about the great war to the well-respected Labour History Group. I took the precaution of securing a copy of his speech, and I hope I will not embarrass or disadvantage him too much by saying what a very good speech it is. He is right to say that politicians probably should not do history, but I am sure he would be the first to say that we should all have an opinion on such an important matter. The Prime Minister has an opinion, I have mine—fortunately for me, it is somewhat similar to his—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have your opinion, and each right hon. and hon. Member in this most opinionated of places will have theirs.

Perhaps I may put my cards on the table. Like most Members present, I suspect that I would have supported Herbert Asquith in the summer of 1914, but it would have been through a veil of ignorance that obscured the full horror of what was about to be unleashed, not least from Asquith himself, whose brilliant son Raymond was killed two years later on the Somme and is listed No. 7 on the Palace of Westminster’s own village war memorial at the top of Westminster Hall, between Archdale and Balfour.

In my view, Britain’s entry into the great war fulfilled the Augustinian precepts for a just war, and we should be grateful that our predecessors in uniform and on the home front ultimately triumphed against the Kaiser—a militaristic aggressor, general disturber of the peace and, in 1914, surely Europe’s public enemy No. 1. There is nothing jingoistic or triumphalist in the view that this country has a tradition of reluctant, sober and purposeful military intervention as a last resort on the part of oppressed people, particularly in continental Europe, and where the well-being and liberty of her own citizens is threatened. The men and women we will celebrate on Armed Forces day in Stirling and across the country this weekend uphold that proud tradition.

Most people’s experience of the centenary will be through broadcast and social media, and the BBC is playing a central role in that in its best Reithian tradition. I am not always the Beeb’s greatest fan, but I have been bowled over by the quality and scope of its TV and radio offerings, which constitute the biggest and most ambitious pan-BBC season ever undertaken. The corporation’s stated intention is to bring the nation together in order to create a national conversation about the great war. Well, it is hitting the spot, and has viewer figures and feedback to prove not only the success of its programming, but the sheer scale of public interest in the centenary.

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

The Minister is making a thoughtful speech and I commend him on his work on mental health in the services, which has great relevance to this debate. Does he agree that not the least of the strengths of what the BBC has been doing is its coverage of life on the home front, and also the extraordinary outpouring of the arts, particularly music, resurrecting many of the semi-forgotten composers from the first world war?

[Dr Murrison]

I certainly agree. The BBC has a difficult balance to strike. In my view, it is doing that extremely well. I particularly commend its efforts to shine a light on some of the perhaps least well explored elements of the great war. We all know about the mud and the trenches. We know rather less about the home front. I hope that, as we proceed through the four-year centenary, we will have a more holistic view of what it meant to be alive between 1914 and 1918.

The UK’s commemoration will begin on Monday 4 August in Glasgow, where the JoyFest of the Commonwealth games will be replaced by the solemnity of Glasgow cathedral and remembrance in George square. In the evening, the evocative Commonwealth War Graves Commission site at St Symphorien near Mons has been chosen for an event based on reconciliation, which we know the public want and expect to see. German and Belgian representatives will join us, as will Heads of State and Government and the families of those interred, irrespective of nationality.

On the same day, the Step Short project in Folkestone will unveil its memorial arch over the road of remembrance, down which troops marched to embarkation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on bringing that important project to maturity. It is a flagship for thousands of independent projects up and down the country that have been inspired by the centenary.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Step Short project. Does he agree that the debate is timely because the memorial arch is being erected today in Folkestone?

[Dr Murrison]

I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend’s news. I have been watching the project with much interest. I know that it will be an important part of our commemoration. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), it is important to commemorate all elements of the centenary. The magic of Folkestone is the ability to plot the course of that final trip for so many thousands of servicemen as they embarked for France. Many, of course, never returned but many did—the majority did. Folkestone in those years held a particular place in the hearts of the service community, either because it was the point of embarkation or because, more happily, it was the point of return.

At 11 o’clock, the hour at which Britain entered the war on 4 August, the day will be closed with a vigil centred on Westminster abbey, which will run in parallel with similar services at St Anne’s cathedral in Belfast, Llandaff cathedral in Cardiff and other churches and faith communities across the country. At the same time, public buildings, workplaces and homes will be encouraged to participate in Lights Out to refer to the observation by Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey on the eve of war that the lamps were going out across Europe and they would not be lit again in his time. As part of that, the Royal British Legion plans to sell a million candles to remember a million fallen, each one extinguished at 11 pm. Here is the clever bit. In the darkness, a single lamp will be left burning, since hope never dies, and it never did.

The centenary is a marathon, not a sprint. Following 4 August, we have the 2014 season of remembrance, Gallipoli in April next year, Jutland and the Somme in 2016 and Passchendaele in 2017. In 2018, Amiens to Armistice will mark the last 100 days of the war. Interspersed will be myriad anniversaries from Coronel to Cambrai marking the waypoints of war, each commemorated appropriately with international participants and national units and their successors.

Big anniversaries, with their attendant large-scale national events, are pegs on which to hang the clothes of the centenary. The richness will come from 1,000 projects, from the flagship rebirth of the Imperial War museum on 19 July, to the Woodland Trust centenary forests to be planted in each of the four nations, to the small local initiatives that I heard about a week ago in Norfolk, as the guest of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). Many of those are funded from the £56 million already allocated by the Heritage Lottery Fund. Many are part of the First World War Centenary Partnership, which now has 3,000 member organisations in 50 countries, and many already have the active involvement of constituency MPs.

The 14-18 Now cultural programme will add granularity and texture to the centenary and bring it alive. May I pick out its letter to an unknown soldier project, a literary memorial centred on the enigmatic statue of a soldier reading a letter on platform 1 at Paddington station? The statue makes us wonder what is in the soldier’s letter. Members of the public are now invited to write that letter. All sorts of celebrities have already done so, and MPs certainly should.

I recently sent a note to all right hon. and hon. Members about the centenary poppy campaign, which is a great way for MPs to get involved locally and in the process both proliferate wild flowers and raise money to help the Royal British Legion to support today’s service community. I urge colleagues to take up the Commonwealth War Graves Commission offer to visit its sites in this country. There is most likely to be at least one such site in or close to each UK constituency. There are at least two Commonwealth War Graves Commission commissioners in the House today. I know that they will underscore that point. It is a revelation to many of us how many Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites there are in this country. They are not by any manner of means all on the western front.

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

I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend is laying out the plans for this great year. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission recently took me around several of the war graves in my constituency. I have set about visiting all 55 churchyards with Commonwealth war graves in my constituency, 209 graves in total. Whether I will achieve that, we will have to see. I am taking with me children from local primary and secondary schools that are near those graves. That may be an initiative that others want to follow.

[Dr Murrison]

I commend my hon. Friend’s project. Other hon. Members will wish to emulate it. Like me, he has a large number of Commonwealth war graves in his constituency. I know that primary schools in particular in my constituency are keen to honour the fallen. Several of those schools have similar projects. The centenary will be an occasion when our minds will be focused closely on the subject. I suspect that, over the four years, interest will increase, particularly in schools. I hope that MPs will be able to take the lead in promoting that, as my hon. Friend has done in his constituency. It is important that parliamentarians apply leadership in such matters. I am confident, given the interest among colleagues, that they will do precisely that.

It is important also to ensure that our war memorials are in a fit state. A centenary is surely an opportunity to ensure that we revisit those extraordinary monuments that lie at the heart of most of our communities. I am pleased to say that over £5 million has been made available from Government to ensure that local war memorials are in good order. For details of that and the extensive work being done by Government Departments and agencies, I recommend the Government centenary webpage.

My hope is that the centenary of the first world war will provoke a wider interest in history and that it will enrich the teaching and study of the discipline more generally. It is not just about educating young people. I learnt about the wars of the 20th century from my parents and grandparents, who were contemporary witnesses. Young children these days do not have that advantage. In a curious reversal, to our surprise and delight, we have found that children participating in the £5.3 million battlefields project have been inculcating awareness of the great war among their parents, so it is bottom-up replacing top-down.

The Government intend to continue to work with the 60 or so countries worldwide who have a direct interest in the centenary. In Ireland the great war centenary falls within a decade of commemoration. It is an opportunity for reflection and conversation facilitated by the Queen’s historic visit in 2011, and it is set to mature further and strengthen one of the most important relationships for both countries.

This year a Commonwealth War Graves Commission cross of sacrifice is being erected in Dublin’s incredibly important Glasnevin cemetery, which I had the great privilege of visiting recently. Given the history, the significance of such a monument in the shadow of Daniel O’Connell’s tomb is very clear. History is often complex and nuanced, but no good is served by finessing its inconveniences.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the Commonwealth, I was privileged last night to entertain Corporal Mark Donaldson VC from Australia, and is this not an appropriate moment to remember just how much this country owes our cousins in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the troops who came from India and all over what was then the Empire and is now the Commonwealth, without whom we probably could not have seen through either of the world wars in the way that we did?

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have been working very closely with the Governments of all the countries he has cited and more, as he would expect. The high commissioners, particularly in London, have been very keen to engage. Indeed, several of those high commissioners serve as trustees of the Imperial War museum, which is absolutely front and centre, and appropriately so, of our centenary commemoration.

This is an opportunity to bring us closer together. It is, however, important to understand that there are very often complexities in the relationship, and we need to be prepared to address them without prevarication. My hon. Friend knows that in Australia in particular the “lions led by donkeys” mythology is prevalent in some quarters, and it is important to be able to address those concerns without attempting to avoid or sidestep them, because in so doing we come to a better understanding and much closer to the truth. We will be working particularly closely with our Anzac cousins, as my hon. Friend would expect, as our history runs long and deep. This centenary is a wonderful opportunity to make sure we are not seen to be taking that relationship for granted, but that we broaden and deepen it, and I am very confident, having visited Gallipoli this year, that that is on not only our agenda, but the agendas particularly of our Australian and New Zealand friends.

I have to say that the complexities I have cited in our relationships with other countries have not all been in predictable places. In the main they really have not been with Germany, Austria and Turkey; they have been in some unhappy corners of relationships with allies. We have discussed already where some of those may lie, but we must in particular respect and acknowledge attitudes of the sort that are prevalent in South Africa to events that are deeply troubling, such as the sinking of the troopship Mendi in 1917 and the treatment of non-European participants in the war effort. All of this has to be part of our centenary commemoration, and we must do nothing to avoid it, airbrush it or finesse it.

On the very cusp of the centenary of the war to end all war, our first duty has to be remembrance, but the measure of our success will be the extent to which we lift our understanding of the conflicts, causes, conduct and consequences, and the advancement of relations with today’s close friends and partners from both sides of the great war’s great divide.

12:44

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I am proud to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I know that Members on both sides of the House are grateful for this opportunity to mark this important year of remembrance.

Let me begin by paying tribute to the Minister. He and I have been discussing these commemorations for over three years, and I commend him on both the way he has opened this debate and his diligent and genuinely cross-party approach to leading these commemorations.

There are few moments in modern society when we come together as a country to reflect on our shared history, and as we approach Armed Forces day and the 100th anniversary of the shooting of Archduke Franz Ferdinand this weekend, and the other centenary anniversaries later this year, many people around the country will pause and think, perhaps for the first time, about the first world war and what relevance those events of a century ago have to our lives today. I know the Minister and I are agreed that these moments of reflection are not only rare but precious, and that is why our commemorations must be inclusive, engaging and, above all, respectful. Let us be clear—we are all agreed on this—that this is a commemoration, not a celebration.

On Armistice day 1918, the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, came to this House and announced the end of what he described as the war to end all wars. Today we know that it was not that, but it was the war that changed life in this country for ever. The first world war touched every family, affected every community and fundamentally altered our country’s place in the world. It took the lives of 16 million soldiers and civilians across the globe, including around 900,000 servicemen from Britain and the Commonwealth. It was a conflict that transformed society, bringing about profound social, political and economic changes that we can still feel today. The centenary commemorations provide us with a unique opportunity to reflect on that, to pay tribute to those who served and sacrificed for us 100 years ago, and to pass those memories on to future generations. The Minister outlined some of the ways in which the commemorations programme will help to enable that over the next four years.

The programme has our full support, and I would like to put on record our thanks to the thousands of organisations, community groups and dedicated volunteers who are making this happen across the country. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the following: the First World War Centenary Partnership, led by the Imperial War museums, which has brought together nearly 3,000 member organisations from 49 countries and is delivering more than 2,000 events; the 14-18 NOW programme, which is bringing the centenary to life with 50 artistic creations and exhibitions across the country; the Woodland Trust, which is planting four new centenary woods across the United Kingdom as a lasting memorial to the fallen; the BBC, which will deliver 2,500 hours of programming on the subject over the next four years; and the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Heritage Lottery Fund and many, many others. There are more than I could ever hope to have time to mention, but we applaud all of these groups for what they are doing. Each of them is helping to retell our national story. By bringing people together to revisit our shared history, they are making an important contribution.

I would like to say a particular word about the battlefield tours programme for schools, which is being delivered by the Institute of Education. There are few better ways to connect our young people with those who made the ultimate sacrifice on the western front than by taking them to walk the battlefields where so many fought and died. Anyone who has visited those cemeteries will know what a moving and powerful experience that is. There were 16,000 towns and villages across Britain in 1914, but only 40 of them—40 thankful parishes—would reach 1918 without having lost someone in the conflict, so every visiting school will be able to follow in the footsteps of soldiers from their own community.

Last month, I travelled to Serre in northern France to retrace the route taken by the Barnsley Pals battalions from my constituency. These were the men who responded to Lord Kitchener’s famous recruitment poster in 1914. They included miners, glassworkers, clerks, stonemasons and clerics, many of them friends and neighbours. They joined up together; they trained together; they went to war together; and ultimately, many of them died together. I walked the ground over which the Barnsley Pals fought at the battle of the Somme, and I stood in front of their graves in the pouring rain. Looking out from those trench positions that still scar the French countryside, I imagined what it must have been like. It was hard not be overcome by the emotion of what happened there. Later that day, we visited the memorial to the missing at Thiepval. As I read the names inscribed on the memorial, I suddenly saw my own name, “D. Jarvis”, staring back at me. It was a sobering moment that brought home the scale of the sacrifice, and an experience that so many visitors to the battlefield will have had.

Our country’s deployments over the past 13 years in Afghanistan and Iraq have now lasted over three times longer than the first world war; 632 servicemen and women have lost their lives, and we have felt the pain of each and every one of them, so it is hard to imagine now what it must have been like to live through a conflict that took the lives of six times that many soldiers every week, or to appreciate how much the country was wounded by the first day of the battle of the Somme, when 20,000 men were cut down on a single beautiful summer’s day on 1 July 1916.

[Mr Brazier]

I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way during his really excellent speech. Is not the most remarkable testimony to the spirit of the nation at the time encapsulated in the words of a famous general from his own regiment, General Anthony Farrar-Hockley, who observed that on the eve of this, the largest military undertaking in British history up to that point, not one single soldier was listed as absent without leave?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am not entirely certain which General Farrar-Hockley he is referring to—there were two in my regiment. [Interruption.] The elder. But whichever one it was, the words he recalls are an absolutely fitting tribute to the steel with which young men from across our country faced adversity. He is absolutely right to take the opportunity to make that point.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. and gallant Friend is making an excellent and poignant speech. Tomorrow, I will visit our mini-arboretum in Blackpool, where not only a whole range of war veterans are recognised, but there are particular plantings for those from Blackpool and the Fylde coast who died in Afghanistan and Iraq; indeed, their names have been added to the war memorial in Blackpool. Does he agree that it is really important that we make a special effort in this centenary year to ensure that those who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq are commemorated on local war memorials?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful for that intervention, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this commemoration provides a very important opportunity to reflect on the service and sacrifice of not just those who served us 100 years ago, but those who more recently served our country in very difficult circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq. This commemoration provides a very important opportunity to make sure that we continue to pay tribute to those who served, and who continue to serve, our country.

I was reflecting on the impact that the loss of 20,000 young men must have had on our country in July 1916. Naturally, it is right and understandable that there are strong and differing opinions about that war, which took the lives of so many young men. That was certainly true 100 years ago, and it is true today. Some will say that those young men died in a conflict that, though appalling, was necessary and needed to be fought. Others argue that their sacrifice was futile, in a war that achieved nothing and could and should have been avoided. It is a debate that has engaged historians and many others for many years and I am sure will continue to do so, but I believe that these commemorations should not be about Government and politicians sitting in judgment on events that took place 100 years ago. They should be about creating an environment in which we can all reflect on these events in an open and democratic way that is respectful of opinions that did, and do, differ.

As well as the silent tributes we will pay, there will also be room for lively debate and discussion. We should not shy away from talking about the anti-war movement, about the protest that took place against the war, and about those who refused to fight as a matter of conscience. As well as remembering the brave sacrifice of those on the front line, it is very important that we take the opportunity to include in this discussion the heroes who served our country on the home front, because we know that the first world war reached far beyond the poppy fields of Flanders. These commemorations should also tell the story of the people who kept this country going: the miners; the factory and railway workers; and those who worked the land and cared for the wounded.

This particularly struck me last week when I visited the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, a beautiful place that honours with fitting dignity and grace all those who have served our country in conflict. I was joined by a number of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who is doing so much in his role—as is my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—to support these commemorations and help make them a great success for the whole country. Together, we paid our respects at memorials to those who fell in the first world war and other conflicts since. We also visited memorials to those who served on the home front during the second world war, which underlined for me the fact that, although groups such as the Bevin boys have rightly become imprinted on our national consciousness, the story of the home front in the first world war is less well known.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent and intelligent speech. The first world war was also a period of enormous political and social change; there were the rent strikes in Glasgow, in which tens of thousands of people participated. They led directly to the first rent restriction legislation in the whole of the Europe, which was passed in record time, in recognition of the work, led by women, for change in their own society.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful for that intervention. I think my hon. Friend is referring to Mrs Barbour and “Mrs Barbour’s Army”.

[Ann McKechin]

indicated assent.

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this commemoration provides a unique opportunity to reflect on the very important social change that took place, and I will say more about that in a moment.

As I was saying, the story of the home front during the first world war is less well known. In my own Yorkshire region, hundreds of coal miners would die serving our country underground between 1914 and 1918. One personal hope that I therefore have for these centenary commemorations is that one day, there will be a fitting national memorial to recognise the debt we owe to everyone who contributed during the first world war here at home.

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

Some 30,000 miners were on the front line during the first world war. They were tunnellers, and a lot of them lost their lives.

[Dan Jarvis]

Again, I am grateful for that intervention. It is incredibly important that we take the opportunity to commemorate the sacrifice of those who served on the front line and those who served on the home front. As a Member representing a Barnsley constituency, I know how important people consider it to be that we do not lose sight of the difficult conditions that thousands and thousands of men worked under, not only underground in this country, but supporting our armed forces on the western front.

I was about to say that one personal hope I have for these centenary commemorations is that we have a fitting national memorial for those who contributed on the home front during the first world war, not just because of the importance of their service, but because it is also part of the story of how our country changed. The war led to more working women than ever before, taking on roles that had previously been the preserve only of men. An estimated 2 million women entered the work force, including 1 million women employed by the Ministry of Munitions alone. More than 250,000 joined the women’s Land Army and helped Britain fight off the peril of starvation caused by German U-boats. They joined countless individual heroines who showed us how bravery can come in many different forms, including amazing women such as the nurse Edith Cavell and the doctor Elsie Inglis. Together, those women left millions of cracks in what had previously been a pretty immaculate glass ceiling. Not one woman and hardly any working men had the vote when the war broke out.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend also acknowledge the women who were called up to into a profession that previously had been seen as being way beyond their capability—the police force? Those women walked the streets at night on their own, keeping them safe, as well doing the unique little job of calling on women whose husbands were at the front to check that they were not up to any shenanigans.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s interventions and she makes an important point. I say again that this commemoration provides us with a unique opportunity to reflect on the role that women played and still play in our society, and it is important that we take the opportunity to reflect that in these commemorations.

As I was saying, not one woman and hardly any working men had the vote when war broke out, but by 1918, 8.4 million women were finally enfranchised by the Representation of the People Act 1918. Our democracy expanded, society became less deferential, the trade union movement grew, the role of the state changed and our politics would never be the same. The strains of war also contributed to unrest in Ireland and helped change the shape of the United Kingdom. Britain’s place in the world shifted, and men who had never been before to Britain would come here to fight for it. Millions of people from across the Commonwealth served in the British war effort—more than 1 million came from the Indian subcontinent alone—fighting side by side with British troops on land, at sea and in the air. When the British Expeditionary Force was on the brink in late September 1914, 28,000 troops from the Indian army, the first ever to fight on European soil, came to Britain’s aid and played a crucial role in holding the line on the western front. They would, of course, be joined by soldiers from many other countries, including volunteers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the West Indies and parts of Africa; 175 of those servicemen from overseas would be awarded the Victoria Cross for their courage and gallantry, and we must never forget that.

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

My hon. Friend is making an outstanding speech. On Monday, I attended the world war one commemoration event at Hounslow civic centre, in my constituency. It was also attended by the Gurkhas and so many others, including people of Indian origin, who share great pride in the role that they have also played. Does he agree that it is incredibly important that during this year of commemoration we recognise the diversity of those who have been involved in our forces and the importance of diversity in Britain today? I am talking not just about what we share today, but about our common bonds from our histories.

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with that; there is a strength that comes from our diversity. As the Minister also said, it is incredibly important that we take this opportunity to commemorate the service and sacrifice of those people who had never come to Britain before but came here to support our efforts. We have a huge debt of gratitude to pay to them, and we will miss an opportunity if we do not reflect on that in these commemorations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned Ireland and the troubles it was experiencing during the first world war. None the less, the Irish came across to support us, from north and south, in huge numbers. He also mentioned the Victoria Cross, so I would like to place on the record the fact that it has been won by more Irishmen than Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen put together.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for that intervention as I did not know that. I am sure that the House will be extremely grateful for that contribution and I suspect that many of us will have learned something from it.

In that same spirit, I wish to reflect briefly for a moment on the significance of people such as Walter Tull, the first black officer in the British Army; that was just one small step on the road to affording ethnic minorities the recognition and respect they deserve.

We should also take the opportunity to reflect on the fact that the war left its mark on this place where we gather today. Of all the countries that went to war in 1914, Britain’s was the only Parliament to debate entry into the conflict. When the lamps went out that night on 4 August, it left more than just a shadow over this place; 251 existing and future MPs would serve in the first world war, and 19 from the Parliament of 1914 would not come back. Their shields mark this Chamber and watch over us today, and they were joined by 24 Members of the other place, as well as 20 parliamentary staff—clerks, waiters and cleaners—who were also killed in action.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the marvellous memorial in the offices of the Select Committee on Defence to the secretariat and people from that defence Department who lost their lives in the great war?

[Dan Jarvis]

I was not aware of that, so, again I am grateful for that intervention, from which I have learned something.

I was reflecting on the impact that the war had on this House and speaking about those Members of Parliament who went to serve, but we should be mindful of the fact that the war would not just be experienced by those on the front line. When the Lochnagar mine was detonated at 7.28 am on 1 July 1916 by the Royal Engineers at the start of the battle of the Somme, the noise was heard in Downing street. That same year, all three party leaders would lose a son in the war in the space of six months. In December 1917, the Speaker at the time was forced to adjourn a debate so that hon. Members could, as Hansard records it, “'retreat to the cellars” during a German air raid.

These commemorations, as well as looking back, should also be about looking forward, because if we get this right and if we dedicate ourselves to these commemorations in the right way, they should also be relevant to the lives we live today. We should be mindful of the fact that 100 years ago, on 22 May 1914, suffragettes were being arrested at the gates of Buckingham palace, petitioning for the right to vote, whereas on 22 May 2014 nearly two thirds of a country with universal suffrage decided they were better off staying at home on election day. One hundred years ago the debate was about whether women should be allowed in the polling booth and whether they could do jobs that only men had done before. Today, the debate needs to be about getting more women on to ballot papers and into boardrooms at the top of our work force.

One hundred years ago, nobody had ever heard of shellshock or post-traumatic stress disorder. Today, the issue is not just what more we can do for our veterans returning from action, but how we prioritise the mental health of everyone. One hundred years ago, people from all over the world fought and died to protect this country. Today we need to remember the debt that we owe to people who were not born here, but who helped make this country what it is. One hundred years ago, the first world war changed the role of the state. Government took action on food, rents and wages, and that links to one of the central arguments in our public life today: what Government should and should not do in the 21st century.

I began by reflecting on a quote of David Lloyd George on Armistice day. Let me finish with some words from a week later. On 18 November 1918, this House gathered again to debate an address to the King on a victorious peace. These are the words spoken that day by Herbert Asquith, who began the war as Prime Minister and ended it as Leader of the Opposition. This was his reflection:

“When history comes to tell the tale of these four years, it will recount a story the like of which is not to be found in any epic in any literature. It is and will remain by itself as a record of everything humanity can dare or endure--of the extremes of possible heroism and of possible baseness…The old world has been laid waste…All things have become new.”—[Official Report, 18 November 1918; Vol. 110, c. 3237.]

Nearly a century on, those words have lost none of their power or their resonance, and they reflect what should be our guiding light in these commemorations. We should remember that sacrifice that was laid to dust and reflect on what changed and what became new. If someone is to look back in 50 or 100 years to what was said when this House and this country marked the centenary of the first world war, let us hope that it will be said that we kept true to that—that we kept the memory of those who served burning brightly, not wearied by the passage of time, and that we took this important opportunity to reflect on how we became the country we are today and on all those who made it possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As there are important and relevant speeches to be made, may I suggest to all Members that they aim to speak for about 10 minutes each? That will give everyone a fair chance to make their speech and to raise their constituency issues.

13:12

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to participate in the second debate in this Chamber on the centenary of the first world war. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on two excellent speeches, outlining not only the programme but many of the issues that we are here to debate. I will touch on two areas, but first, let me declare an interest as somebody who, as a military historian, has written about this subject in the past. I am a parliamentary commissioner on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, along with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and joint chairman of the advisory board on Parliament and the first world war.

We should not shy away from the fact that this centenary is controversial. It is not up to the Government to lay down views on every aspect of it, but we should recognise that it is controversial—that history is alive today. The Minister mentioned the fact that in two days’ time it will be the centenary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo. That anniversary is controversial for Serbs, Bosnians, Croats and the successors of the old Austro-Hungarian empire, because it is about symbols as much as anything else.

As we speak, the leaders of the European Union are gathering in the Belgian town of Ypres. The Immortal Salient is something that resonates very strongly with the British empire and Commonwealth forces. As much as the Somme, it is a symbol of the first world war. This evening, those leaders will gather at the Menin Gate, the great memorial to some 57,000 men who have no known grave and who died in the salient. That figure only goes up to August 1917. They could not get on all the names; the rest of the names are at the Tyne Cot cemetery.

Friends and foes will gather tonight and thoughts will be going through their minds. The event is important for us because the old British Army died at Ypres in 1914. It is important because some of the first Indian troops were being deployed in late 1914 to 1915. It is also important for the Belgians and the French. Sometimes we tend to erase them from the folk memory of the first world war. Yes, they should be grateful that the British empire came to their assistance, but it is as much about their memories of the first world war. After all, Ypres was almost totally destroyed by 1918. Indeed, in 1919, Churchill, as the Secretary of State for War and Air, suggested that Ypres should remain a ruin to immortalise the sacrifice of the British and Commonwealth armies, not taking into account that the Belgians had a different view on all of that.

Tonight is also important for the Germans. Chancellor Merkel will be there. Just north of Ypres—some Members will have been there—there is the German cemetery at Langemark, which commemorates about 40,000 German soldiers, most of whom died in 1914. One man who had a narrow escape was an Austrian serving in a reserve Bavarian regiment; he was Grenadier Adolf Hitler. If only some old British soldier had taken him out, things might have been different.

Those leaders who are gathering tonight will discuss controversies such as the future of the EU. A number of my colleagues become enraged at the idea of linking the EU with the centenary of the first world war. I want to do not that, but to remember the fact that one of the reasons why the French, Germans and Belgians came together after the second world war was to prevent another major clash between the French and Germans. After all, they did it in 1870-71, 1914-18 and then 1940-45. We should be sensitive to that. It does not mean that we have to agree with everything, but we should realise that, for the French and the Germans, Verdun is probably a bigger symbol than what will happen at Ypres.

I propose to Ministers—I hope that this will find support among colleagues across the House—to add one other specific commemoration on the Government’s national commemoration list. On 21 May 2017, we should commemorate the centenary of the establishment of what was then called the Imperial War Graves Commission. I am parti pris to this because I am a commissioner, but most people recognise that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is the biggest deliverer of much of the commemoration of the first world war. The Imperial War museum, the BBC and the Heritage Lottery Fund are very important, but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is something that most people at some stage have come across or are going to come across, and it was not predetermined.

Many colleagues recognise the fact that before the first world war, when men in the Army died serving in Europe, they were usually thrown into a pit. Occasionally, officers got a separate burial or, just occasionally, they were brought home. We should not forget the fact that the overwhelming majority of men who served in the Royal Navy or the merchant navy have no known grave. Nelson was rare; he was brought home in a keg of rum, most of which was drunk at Gibraltar before he was put in a proper coffin. There is nothing like the old chief petty officers for getting to the heart of the matter.

The point is that in 1914 nobody thought that the casualties would be on such a scale, and it was by chance that a 48-year-old ex-Plymouth Brethren, former member of Lord Milner’s young people in South Africa, and former editor of the Morning Post, who was in charge of a Red Cross ambulance column, began to worry about what was going to happen to the dead—where they would be buried and so on. That man was Fabian Ware. As much as anything else, it was his determination, political nous and knowledge of French that enabled the setting up of what we know today as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

To give hon. Members some context, the War Office did not really want to know about war graves, but within three months the British Army had suffered 80,000 casualties in France. His Grace the Duke of Wellington’s Army suffered 3,500 at the battle of Waterloo. The sheer scale of the losses was enormous. Parents, wives and husbands were worried about this. Ware achieved in December 1915 an agreement with the French Government that they would allow a series of dedicated areas to be consecrated as proper war cemeteries, where British dead could be brought during the war and afterwards. It was logistically important but also perhaps emotionally important that Ware decided not to allow tens of thousands of people to bring their husbands and sons home.

So the Commonwealth War Graves Commission deserves to be part of the recognition of the centenary. It meets all the criteria that hon. Members are looking for. It is about more than Great Britain. It is about equality in death, which was a rare thing that Ware demanded. There would be no distinction in rank or background; the gravestone would be the same. It would be laid out in a way that British empire people would recognise as representing what Britain stood for. He brought in some of the best architects such as Lutyens and Blomfield, who designed the Menin Gate, and of course the great wordsmith Rudyard Kipling. Kipling pulled every string to get his under-age son into the Irish Guards and then had the tragedy, like so many parents, of learning that he was killed and missing. The irony was that, long after Kipling and his wife had died, we were able to identify a body that was his son. Kipling came up with most of the terminology that we know today.

I hope that, apart from debating the history and sometimes the controversial nature of the first world war, we will be able collectively to persuade Ministers to celebrate the centenary of the establishment of the Imperial War Graves Commission—its patent, if you like—with the national centenary. It meets every criteria, not least in educating young people about the first world war.

13:23

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

I begin by commending the Government both for finding time for this important debate and for the measured way in which these centenary commemorations are being prepared. The way in which we describe the events of 1914-18 as the first world war, the great war or the war to end all wars reflects its global nature, the extent of the fighting and the fact that this was the first total war of the modern age. I am struck that the commemorations so far have been very personal to my constituents and many people I meet. It is as though everyone has a story to tell or everyone is searching for a story to tell, so I want to begin with an example that is not extraordinary in any way; it is just one story among millions.

The story is that of Sergeant Matthew Brown, who served in the 12th Battalion of the Durham Light Infantry. He was born in Consett in county Durham. He was one of seven children. He became a stonemason. He never married. He had no children. He was killed during the later stages of the battle of the Somme in October 1916. He was just 27 years old, which is less than half my age. He was blown to pieces near the village of Le Sars, along the Albert-Bapaume road, and his body was never recovered. His name, with those of thousands of his comrades, is inscribed on the great and moving memorial to the missing at Thiepval. I do not know what went through Matthew Brown’s mind when he enlisted or in the hours and days before he died, but I doubt very strongly that he would ever have imagined in a million years, let alone a hundred years, that his name would be mentioned in this great House of Commons, let alone by his great nephew, but I am proud to do so.

The commemorations are not just about those individuals, of course. They bring together local communities. Less than two weeks ago, I stood with veterans and local residents in Cullercoats in my constituency at a service to rededicate a plaque with the names of local men who died in the first world war. The plaque stands on the east side of St George’s church and was rededicated at exactly the same time on exactly the same date as the original plaque was dedicated 93 years earlier. Students at Marden high school took part in the event, and they will now research further the effects of the war on what was then a small fishing community.

One issue that emerged, and I am sure is emerging in many other places, is that some of the names on the plaque were of men who had no link with that community. Many of the men who died in the community are not on that plaque. Yet of course, it is a listed monument so, apart from one small correction of a spelling mistake, and that after a great deal of deliberation, no changes can be made. That is frustrating for families sometimes.

The plaque includes the names of Major and Captain Knott. Their father Sir James Knott was distraught at the deaths of his only two sons and set up a trust that continues to do good work today, including the building of Knotts flats to improve the provision of municipal housing in what was then a declining fishing and mining port.

The Tynemouth world war one project is based at the Linskill centre and funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. More than 70 volunteers, under the inspirational leadership of Alan Fidler and Dan Jackson, are mapping the stories of men and women from just one borough—Tynemouth. They have already identified 2,000 men who lost their lives as a result of world war one. Most of them are from the town where I live, North Shields.

Any of us who have studied or taught the history of the 19th century and looked at industrial cities will be familiar with the maps that show where people died in cholera and typhus epidemics. The map that has been produced by the project is remarkably similar, yet this was a man-made epidemic.

Lectures at Northumbria university have been well attended and there have been less formal ones at the Low Lights Tavern. The project aims to mark with a plaque as many houses as can be found of those who fell. It is important for local people to know. Local newspapers such as the News Guardian and Evening Chronicle have given not only support but excellent coverage of what the project is doing. This Saturday the database will go live and on 3 August there will be a parade and service in Northumerland square. The project’s aims were to be informative, accessible and inspirational, and it is all those things and more.

The north-east paid a particularly high price in the war. It was said that working in the coal mines and shipyards gave local men the aptitude and stamina for trench warfare. Northumberland raised 55 battalions of fusiliers—more than any other county in the country. The Durham Light Infantry raised 43 battalions. Their histories record them as being where the action was heaviest. There were eight battalions of Tyneside Scottish and Tyneside Irish, showing where men had come from to work on the great northern coalfield. The Tyneside Scottish alone lost all four of its lieutenant-colonels on the first day of the battle of the Somme.

Scholars and historians will go on debating the first world war, its causes, its course and its effects, and so they should, but what is not debatable is the sacrifice made by individual soldiers, sailors and airmen, or the munitions workers, miners and shipyard workers— 60,000 of them along the banks of the river Tyne—who worked tirelessly to support the war effort. As the son of a Bevin boy, I support very much the idea that there should be a lasting memorial to them. Millions of men and women were prepared to defend their country—our country—and the values that they believed their country stood for. For the millions who gave their lives, in the famous words of Laurence Binyon, I say, “We will remember them.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We are now going to hear a maiden speech. I call Robert Jenrick.

13:30

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you, Members in all parts of the House and the staff of the House for the warm welcome I have received since I arrived here. It is an honour to make my first modest contribution during this debate. As the Prime Minister said last year, commemorations say something about who we are as a people, and we in this country have a tradition of striking the right tone on such occasions. It is right that the House and the Government have given this such thoughtful consideration. Before I do so, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Patrick Mercer, and say a few words about the constituency that I am incredibly proud to represent.

Patrick Mercer came to politics after 25 years as a soldier in a Nottinghamshire regiment, the Sherwood Foresters, and his strongly held views, particularly on defence and national security, were rooted in his own experience of military service. He knew what it was like to write to the mother or wife of a fallen soldier. He himself had fought with a courage and bravery we all wish we could display in our own lives. I know that Patrick worked hard for the people in Newark, particularly in his care and support for those returning to Nottinghamshire from Iraq and Afghanistan. I know he was, and remains, deeply attached to this beautiful constituency.

The town of Bingham was represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) for some 40 years prior to 2010, and it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to him, too. There remains great affection for Ken around Bingham and, indeed, across Nottinghamshire. I understand that there is even talk of a statue, but opinion divides as to whether it should face the local cricket pitch, his favourite hostelry or the local Chinese restaurant where the young Mr Clarke is said to have held his early surgeries. I also walk in the footsteps of Gladstone, who did not stay long as a Newark Conservative, losing the confidence of the Duke of Newcastle, upon whom much depended in those days, and perhaps recognising that, as in the recent by-election, the Liberal vote in these parts can be quite limited.

It is almost unnecessary for me to tell the House about my constituency because many right hon. and hon. Members are already surprisingly familiar with it. Indeed, it has been said that Newark has not seen so many parliamentarians since the end of the civil war. As one sage trader in Newark market said to me at the weekend, the town has become such a popular destination for MPs that it is surely time that we, too, established an all-party parliamentary group.

I enter the House following a by-election, the result of which was historic—the first such victory for our party in government since that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. After 25 years and 16 consecutive defeats, my right hon. Friend was, I suspect, only too glad to see his record broken. One journalist described us as the Fred Perry and Andy Murray of the Conservative party. The people of Newark have had to endure four by-elections in the last 100 years, and a further one was narrowly averted. It is my ambition to ensure that Newark now enters a period of electoral stability.

Newark is rich in history and blessed with some of England’s lesser known but most attractive towns, villages and countryside. It stretches from the shadow of Belvoir castle in the south to the tidal Trent villages of Bassetlaw in the north, and includes Southwell—or Southall—dominated by its Norman minster, Tuxford and Bingham, the latter recently voted England’s best place to bring up a family. The eastern border is Nottinghamshire’s county boundary, and includes villages of great beauty and historic connections, such as Elston, home of the Darwin family, and Norton Disney, the ancestral seat of Walt Disney. To the west the seat stretches from Lowdham and Epperstone, close to the city of Nottingham, through Caunton, Laxton, Wellow and Egmonton into Robin Hood country—the old Nottinghamshire dukeries whose occupants once dominated its politics and the Nottinghamshire coalfields once a major part of our economy. There are almost 100 villages set in undulating, largely arable agricultural land, watered and too often flooded by becks and tributaries of the River Trent.

Newark has been a meeting point for almost 1,000 years. The Romans built a motorway through it, the Fosse way, and later the Great North road. We have to put up with the A1. The Normans built a castle, later replaced by Bishop Alexander of Lincoln’s summer palace, or at least that is what he told the King when asking permission to build it. That castle was slighted by Cromwell after Newark surrendered following its third siege in the civil war. No town stood alone longer. No people proved more resilient. Its fall was the last order of Charles I, the price of his own surrender to the Scots at Kelham, having arrived at the Saracen’s Head in Southwell late the night before from Oxford, disguised as a priest.

During the recent by-election, the same inn played host to the leader of the United Kingdom Independence party, who arrived from Malta, not in disguise as far as I know, but also heading to Kelham, in this case for the election count—although he too has not always enjoyed being at the mercy of the Scots. Newark will soon boast the first national civil war museum. Having experience of the arts business, supporting our heritage sector, particularly in the regions, where funding has been limited, I intend to contribute on the subject.

Newark’s economy has at various times relied on wool, beer, grain, sugar, cream cakes, transport and antiques. The economy is growing, with 8,000 new jobs created since 2010. Newark has a high proportion of small and medium-sized businesses. My parents set up their own manufacturing business at our kitchen table and I will seek to support many Newark constituents taking personal risks, working hard and pursuing enterprising lives by defending low and simple taxation and light and flexible regulation.

An area whose virtue has long been location, location, location urgently needs investment in its creaking infrastructure, whether that is a southern relief road for Newark, increased services on the Lincoln-Newark-Nottingham railway and east coast main line or broadband for our underserved rural communities. A growing population requires appropriate public services, particularly health care, whether that be ensuring the long-term future of Newark’s cherished hospital or ensuring that our ambulance service is fit for purpose. There is a sentiment that Newark has not been front of mind for decision makers. Being a hidden gem is all well and good, but this one now requires some attention.

I am also conscious of how this little corner of England can prosper on a wider, global stage. I join this House having spent the last four years managing a British business expanding by entering new markets, accepting wholeheartedly the challenge and reward of globalisation. Newark businesses are succeeding in the global race. Our architects, Benoy, have grown from designing the local cowsheds to designing the shopping malls of China. I want to see more such businesses in my constituency.

This is in many ways one of the greatest times to be alive, when much of what we thought we knew is wrong, with the shift in power from west to east, the financial markets turned upside down and the internet upending old industries. But our success depends greatly on whether we can deliver the best schools and skills to young people, preparing them for the jobs of the future. My constituency is blessed with some outstanding schools—the Minster, Toot Hill and Tuxford—and a growing number of quality apprenticeships. I will make it my priority to raise educational standards in Newark—a town that, for all its many virtues, suffers areas of deprivation where we must do all we can to increase opportunity for all. The challenge as we emerge from the great recession is not only to finish the job—there are, after all, no final victories in politics; all achievements, however hard won, can be and are undone—but to position towns like Newark and, indeed, the country as a dynamic and optimistic place, living and trading courageously, face turned to the world.

In times of great change, a sense of anxiety can prevail, which brings me back to the subject of today’s debate, the importance of remembering our past and doing so in a manner that reflects and enriches our values. On 10 August this year in Newark, young and old together will recreate the rally and great march from our market square to Radcliffe-on-Trent undertaken on the same day in 1914, six days after war was declared, by hundreds of young men, who went on to training and ultimately to the trenches. Fewer than half of those men returned. Proportionally, Newark was one of the most affected towns in the UK. On 24 August, Newark football club will recreate the peace or truce match in Ypres, playing a German side from our twinned town, inspired by William Setchfield, the Newark lad widely credited with sparking the famous match 100 years ago this Christmas.

Southwell minster has hosted an evocative collection of local memories that I enjoyed taking a primary school to visit, entitled “No Greater Love”. Love is, I think, the key: to those who served our country, we offer belatedly our love by remembering and better understanding what they experienced, placing young people and education front and centre, and displaying the British virtue of being thoughtful and compassionate, able to look outward and to the future without neglecting our past.

It is an honour to serve as Member of Parliament for Newark. In doing so, I will act with the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Newark as my guide.

13:42

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

With other Members of the House, I welcome the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to his place. I knew his predecessor well and often heard his views on defence. We did not always agree, but more often than not, we did. I should apologise, because family commitments meant that I am one of the Members who has not visited his constituency lately. I therefore found it particularly interesting to hear his description, which may explain why so many Members flocked there. I recognise his hope that there will be no more by-elections for Newark and that we will now enter a period of stability.

If the hon. Gentleman is right and the view he takes in this House is one of “investment, investment, investment”, particularly in services, I think he will get a great deal of support from across the House. Investment in schools, educational standards and skills for young people is something that many Members agree on.

Today is a difficult day on which to make a maiden speech, because we have already heard some stunning speeches from Members on both sides of the House. It is interesting to see the hon. Gentleman at the heart of parliamentary unity, surrounded by Conservative Members. I hope that he continues to occupy such a harmonious place with members of his party.

I must admit to some shenanigans on my part. On Sunday, I attended a church service in Kenfig Hill, celebrating a week of community activities in Kenfig Hill alongside a commemoration of the first world war. In the service, the address was led by the Venerable Philip Morris, archdeacon of Margam and priest in charge at the parish of Ewenny and St Brides Major. When we came out of the church, I sidled up to the archdeacon and said, “Great sermon! Can I borrow it?” As a result, much that the House will hear today the archdeacon helped me write.

It is only appropriate that I commemorate the archdeacon’s part in this speech, because I too wanted to talk about how people in our local communities and the surrounding area played a part in the British war effort, in the trenches and at home. Many of the youngsters who went to war came from farm labouring jobs and had a very limited understanding of the wider world. For most of them, going as far as the large town of Bridgend would have been a huge achievement; to get as far as Cardiff would have been beyond their belief; and crossing the Severn into England would have been viewed with dread. Yet many joined the Glamorgan Yeomanry, headquartered in Bridgend, and on 9 August boarded a troopship—the SS Arcadian, which sailed from Devonport—for the front.

Instead of arriving at “the front”, the Glamorgan Yeomanry, knowing only the wet and the cold of the Welsh countryside, arrived in Alexandria in Egypt. We need to remember that the front was not just in France and Belgium. Instead of wet and rainy, the place they arrived at was hot and dusty. On the first day in camp, there was a sandstorm in which many of their tents were blown away, never to be recovered. They fought the Germans in Libya and Egypt, and the Turks in Palestine, and eventually they were taken to Marseilles to participate in the last big push in France. Four hundred and fifty-three officers and 7,661 other ranks of the Glamorgan Yeomanry were killed or wounded.

For many children, the war years are remembered in the lines of Dylan Thomas, whose 100th anniversary is also this year. He wrote of his childhood in the “ugly, lovely town” of Swansea,

“This sea town was my world…and…beyond that...a country called ‘The Front’ from which many of our neighbours never came back. At the beginning, the only ‘front’ I knew was the little lobby before our front door; I could not understand how so many people never returned from there”.

That would have echoed with many children in the Britain of 1914-18, though many were deeply involved in the war effort. Boy scouts were used to watch for invasion along the coast; they helped farmers on the land, because farm workers were going to the front. They helped during harvest; they acted as messengers for Government Departments and as orderlies in hospitals, helping those who had been injured at the front and brought home to hospitals in the country. Girl guides worked on vegetable patches and, like the scouts, on farms, digging and weeding, and they harvested fruit. Scouts and guides carried important messages and delivered milk. They parcelled up clothing such as knitwear to be sent to soldiers, and they learned first aid so that they could help the injured.

There is a great story, in what others have remarked is the wonderful BBC coverage, about how the scouts contributed to the war effort by helping to collect conkers. The collection was described as

“invaluable war work and…very urgent. Please encourage it.”

The scouts and children were never told exactly why the Government needed conkers, but they collected them with energy. So successful were their efforts that more conkers were collected than could be transported, and piles rotted at railway stations, but 3,000 tonnes of conkers made it to their destination, the Synthetic Products Company of King’s Lynn, where they were used to produce acetone, needed for the manufacture of cordite, which was the propellant for shells and bullets.

The scheme had been created by the Ministry of Munitions, run by that great Welshman, David Lloyd George. The programme was kept secret until after the war for fear that the Germans would learn of the idea. The wartime Government refused to disclose the purpose of the collection of conkers and, rather oddly, the Ministry of Defence, when questioned, was not clear in its answer, stating only that the conkers were needed for “certain purposes”. That sounds like the sort of answer we get even today.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) said he thought his great-uncle would have been proud to know that 100 years later my right hon. Friend would be a Member of the House. My grandfather, Driver A.E. Ironside, 17785, would have been amazed that women had the vote, and even more amazed that we were allowed into this House. He was called up at the start of the war and left on a troopship on 14 August from Limerick. His first nine days at the front were peaceful, if rather damp, but from 23 August he and his compatriots were under constant fire, often running to abandoned positions and seeing many wounded, as he saw action at the battles of Le Cateau and Mons.

My grandfather’s diary for 5 September records:

“We arrived in Monthyon stayed here for the night properly knocked out both horses and men. We found this place upside down with people. The houses its terrible to see the poor people on the road in a large cart and they don’t know where to go for safety, its heart breaking.”

One of the places such people went was Porthcawl in my constituency. The hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) said that we should remember the Belgians. Well, in Porthcawl we do remember the Belgians, because in my local museum, where we are commemorating Porthcawl’s engagement in the first world war, there is a large display about the Belgians—about how 4,500 who came to Wales found a welcoming place, and how people in Porthcawl took them in and helped them find their feet.

According to the local paper, Porthcawl had

“done better than any place in the country, having regard to population and other circumstances.”

The same paper, the Porthcawl News, ran a Flemish glossary and a Belgian column in order to aid the interaction between the Welsh people and the Belgians. The Porthcawl Belgian refugee committee, run by councillors and citizens, organised the assimilation of the refugees into the community, managed donations to the refugee fund, found accommodation and employment for the refugees and placed Belgian children in local schools. Although the majority of the Belgians returned home after the war, in 1921 Britain had double the Belgian population. We must remember the efforts of those Welsh men, women and children at home, who opposed the Germans peacefully while the military gave their lives.

I urge Members not to go to by-elections but instead to come to Porthcawl, where there is not going to be a by-election, on 2 and 3 August to see and hear illustrated 30-minute talks about Porthcawl during the war. They can join the Glamorgan Family History Society, which will help them to find members of their family who took part in the great war. There will be a recruiting sergeant, period street events, and a Lions club vintage fair, and the Rotary club will have a vintage car display. We will end, appropriately, with a service of reflection at All Saints church, just as we will all be reflecting throughout today.

13:53

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), on two excellent speeches setting the tone of the debate. As has been said, this is the second debate that we have had on the subject, and we have not yet started the four years of commemoration of the great war. I suspect there will be more debates to come. I, too, pay tribute to everybody who has been involved in preparing the ground, notably the Imperial War museum and the BBC. Both those organisations are keen, as are the Government and Members across the House, that those should be commemorations, not celebrations, and that wherever possible they should be local commemorations.

I am delighted to say that in Colchester, local military historian Jess Jephcott has set up a Facebook page for this purpose with just one line: “Colchester Remembers 1914-1918”. On other webpages he kindly mentions a public meeting that I convened in March this year

“to explore ways in which Colchester could commemorate the centenary of the First World War. Those persons who attended gave a positive response and comprised members from the armed forces, the Royal British Legion, youth organisations and private individuals. It was agreed that a vigil should be held on the evening of the centenary of the first day of war being declared”,

so at 7 pm on 4 August, just a few hours before the midnight deadline in Berlin was reached, we will gather for a few minutes for a silent vigil—no banners, no great speeches, just a silent vigil—because, of course, it was all going to be over by Christmas.

We anticipate that there will be further commemorative events over the next four years, culminating in a celebration to mark the end of hostilities on 7 November 1918. There are those who believe that the war ended in 1919, as I mentioned in the previous debate; some communities believe that the war ended with the treaty of Versailles in 1919, which is the date one sometimes sees on war memorials. The aim of the Colchester group is to welcome others to join them in creating appropriate events to commemorate the various happenings, and to link up with others who are planning similar events within the town and the local community. The idea is not to have a formal committee or a big group, but to bring in individuals and groups such as the scouts, the guides or the Royal British Legion to organise their own events, using a central webpage in the hope of avoiding clashes. The opening page concludes:

“Does your locality’s war memorial need sprucing up? Has anybody done a transcription of your war memorial? Do you have pictures of these men and women who served during WW1 and stories to go with them?”

In the summer of 2001, I had the great honour of visiting the battlefields when I accompanied the Colchester sea cadet band, which played at the great ceremony that takes place every night at dusk at the Menin Gate. The next day at Tyne Cot cemetery, I made a point of going to look at the names of the fallen of the 1st Battalion the Essex Regiment, to see whether there were any with the name of Russell. There was Private J. Russell. A few months earlier, my first grandson, Joseph Russell, had been born. Following on from what the shadow Minister said, it was a poignant moment to see on a war memorial the name of my first grandson. Joseph Russell, who will shortly be 13, will go later this year to the fields where so much loss of life occurred, on a battlefields tour for students.

It is important that we bring to today’s generation what happened 100 years ago. I am delighted that the women of the war are to be featured. The poppy fields is an excellent addition, which I hope will be featured. We had a bombing raid in Colchester in the great war, which needs to be recognised and remembered. There are photographs showing the damage.

On 5 and 6 July, the Colchester military festival will take place, in aid of ABF The Soldiers Charity—formerly the Army Benevolent Fund. Although the aim is to show how important our armed forces are in the 21st century, particularly in the garrison town of Colchester, I think that it will set the scene for what happens from 4 August onwards. In the autumn, Colchester Military Wives Choir will sing in the town’s Mercury theatre. Again, that is not a direct first world war commemoration, but there is clearly a link.

It is also worth mentioning that on 19 July the transformed Imperial War museum in London will reopen to the public, revealing its brand-new first world war galleries, which will be free to the public. They will allow audiences young and old to explore what the first world war was like, and to learn how terrible it was for the hundreds of thousands of young men who came from around the world to fight. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) mentioned some of the countries that sent their young people to fight. One of them was Canada. The Imperial War museum features an exhibit on the Canadian expeditionary force.

We are talking today about a war that commenced 100 years ago; 100 years ago, it was the 100th anniversary of another war—one that has been airbrushed out of this nation’s history. Those Members who have read yesterday’s Hansard will have seen that yesterday I had a debate in Westminster Hall—it begins at column 88—on “History Curriculum: North American War, 1812-14”. Had the Americans won that war—we won it—Canada would not have existed, and there would have been no Canadian expeditionary force in 1914, because the United States did not join the war until 1917. Who knows whether the war would still have been raging in 1917 had it not been for the Canadians and others from the empire who took part?

I welcome this debate. It is important that we remember the history of 100 years ago, but we must also remember history prior to that.

14:02

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I rise to speak not only as a Member of this House, but as chair of the Northern Ireland First World War Centenary Committee. I also have the pleasure of representing Northern Ireland on the national advisory board for the commemorations.

I thank the Minister for the excellent work that he and his colleagues have undertaken in providing leadership for the centenary commemorations, which is very much appreciated in Northern Ireland. The help and assistance that we have received from the Department in Whitehall has not gone unnoticed. I also want to thank my colleagues on the committee in Northern Ireland, who represent all the key stakeholders involved in the commemorations, for the excellent work they are undertaking. I will say a little more later about the programme being developed in Northern Ireland for the centenary period.

Mention has already been made of the worldwide significance of the war. It helped to shape the history of Europe in the 20th century, and its impact on the island of Ireland was particularly significant. Indeed, arguably the events of that period continue to shape the history of Ireland today. Many of the men who fought in the ranks of the 10th and 16th Irish Divisions and in regiments such as the Royal Irish Regiment, the Connaught Rangers, the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, the Munsters, the Leinsters and the South Irish Horse were Irish volunteers committed to securing independence. Equally, the men of the 36th Ulster Division, who filled the ranks of the Royal Irish Rifles, the Royal Irish Fusiliers, the Inniskillings and the North Irish Horse, were Ulster volunteers who believed passionately in maintaining the Union with Britain. The future of Ireland was shaped not on the streets of Dublin in 1916, but on the muddy, blood-soaked battlefields of the western front, where Irishmen from every province of the island fought side by side in common cause.

The first Member of this House to lose his life in the war was an Ulsterman, Captain Arthur Edward Bruce O’Neill, who was the Member for Mid-Antrim, which is now represented, at least in part, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). Captain O’Neill was killed in action while serving with the 2nd Life Guards at Klein Zillebeke ridge on 6 November 1914 at the age of 38. He was the father of Captain Terence O’Neill, who became Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Captain O’Neill served with valour. In November this year, with Mr Speaker’s permission, we hope to hold a small act of remembrance at the war memorial in Westminster Hall in memory of the honourable Captain Arthur Edward Bruce O’Neill MP.

Another Member of this House to die in action during the great war while representing an Irish constituency was Major Willie Redmond. He was killed in action while serving with the 6th Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment at Messines ridge on 7 June 1917 at the age of 56. He was a committed Irish nationalist, and brother of the leader of the Irish parliamentary party in this House. In the winter of 1916, months before his death and in the aftermath of the slaughter at the Somme, Willie Redmond wrote these words to Arthur Conan Doyle:

“It would be a fine memorial to the men who have died so splendidly if we could, over their graves, build up a bridge between North and South.”

After the war, the lines were drawn across Ireland and the bridges were broken down. We all know the history of the decades that followed that war. Today, in the 21st century, those bridges that Willie Redmond spoke of are being built. They are bridges of co-operation between the two parts of the island, based on mutual respect—the kind of respect that was in the hearts of the men of the 10th and 16th Irish Divisions and the 36th Ulster Division who fought side by side at Messines in 1917. It is particularly poignant that Willie Redmond was carried off the battlefield by men from the 36th Ulster Division, including Private John Meeke of the 11th Inniskillings.

In honour of men such as Captain Arthur O’Neill MP and Major Willie Redmond MP and the ideals they upheld, we have chosen remembrance and reconciliation as the twin themes for the centenary commemorations in Northern Ireland. Our programme reflects that. On 4 August, as we mark the outbreak of the war, there will be a special service at St Anne’s cathedral in Belfast representing all traditions on the island of Ireland, current and past. We will then have a candlelight vigil at the cenotaph at Belfast city hall, where representatives of the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland will come together in an act of remembrance. We hope to have, for the first time in Northern Ireland, the pipes and drums of the Royal Irish Regiment play alongside those of the Irish army band.

We are planning other events as we look forward. I acknowledge, as the Minister has reported to the House, the excellent work being undertaken at Glasnevin cemetery. Not only have the war graves been restored to an excellent condition, but the erection there of the cross of sacrifice is particularly symbolic and significant. As he pointed out, the cross not only sits in the shadow of Daniel O’Connell’s monument, the round tower, but alongside Gladstone’s grave. Sorry. I do not mean Gladstone, who would not have been buried in Ireland—some people on my side of the House might have wanted to bury him in Ireland. I of course meant Parnell, who was leader of the Irish nationalists. De Valera is buried there too. Alongside their graves we have that fitting memorial to the men—56,000 of them—who left the island of Ireland and gave their lives in defence of our freedom.

Looking ahead, in 2015 we will join others from across the Commonwealth at Gallipoli, where the Irish made a significant contribution at the battle there. In 2016, the centenary of the battle of Jutland, there will be a particular focus on HMS Caroline, which is based in Belfast harbour and currently being restored by the National Museum of the Royal Navy. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for helping us to secure not only the retention of HMS Caroline in Belfast but the funding that will now see her restored to her former glory and right at the heart of the commemoration of the battle of Jutland.

In 2016, it is the centenary of the battle of the Somme, which is seared into the collective memory of the people of Ulster. The men of the 36th Ulster Division were at the forefront of the battle of the Somme. On that fateful morning of 1 July, thousands of those men lost their lives or went missing in action as a result of their heroic efforts. Indeed, a number of them won the Victoria Cross. We are participating in the national project across the United Kingdom to mark the memories of the men who won the Victoria Cross during the first world war with the placing of a stone in their town of birth. This will be done not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic of Ireland, where the Irish Government have consented to receive the stones to mark these men. We very much welcome the fact that they will have their memories commemorated in that way.

In 2017 we mark the centenary of the battle of Messines, when the Irish Divisions fought alongside the Ulster Division. We intend to mark that particularly poignant occasion in a number of ways, bringing together people from across the island of Ireland. Finally, of course, we move towards the centenary of the armistice in 2018. We are considering a major project that will leave a lasting legacy of the centenary of the first world war in Northern Ireland.

I want to conclude my remarks with two quotations. At this time, it is the people who served and those who were left behind at home that we remember most. Captain Wilfred Spender served with the 36th (Ulster) Division at the battle of the Somme. After the battle, as he reflected on the heroics of the men who had gone out to fight that morning, he wrote these words:

“I am not an Ulsterman but yesterday, the 1st. July, as I followed their amazing attack, I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.”

A number of those men won the Victoria Cross that morning. The sacrifice was enormous.

The Minister mentioned the cultural side of the centenary, with the war poetry and the music, and all that is very important. I want to quote one verse from a poem written by Susan Adams from Pipers Hill in Lisburn in my constituency. It is a tribute to her son, Private Ralph Adams of the 13th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, who was killed in action on 1 July 1916. She wrote this:

“In afar distant land though his body now rests.

Far from his home and the ones he loved best,

Still deep in our hearts his memory we’ll keep,

Sweet is the place where he now lies asleep.”

Those words remind us that whether in the far-off fields of France or in the graveyards across this United Kingdom, it is the men and women who fought and died whom this centenary is most about.

14:14

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

It gives me great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who made a very poignant point about how Ireland fought together in the first world war. I am sure that that spirit will mean that all people can live together in Ireland in future. I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their great contributions to this debate, which is a very poignant moment for us to remember the war. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on an excellent maiden speech. We look forward to many great speeches from him. The people of Newark are very well represented in this place.

As we stand here some 100 years on from the start of the first world war, we take so much for granted—our freedom of speech and our ability to vote in democratic elections. We must remember the 887,000 soldiers from the United Kingdom and the British empire and the more than 1.6 million in total who were killed in that conflict. We must remember that at that time there were significantly lower populations in this country and across the world, so a huge percentage of young men were cut down. Perhaps some will dispute this, but—dare I say it—it was such a pointless, needless war: a war of imperial powers muscling up to each other to see who was the greatest. Such a waste of life is quite unbelievable. Of course, even today, conflicts go on across the world, but, thank goodness, we do not see them in our own country or across much of Europe. That is very much to be welcomed.

I congratulate the Government and all the political parties on the events that will take place throughout this memorial year, because it is right that we remember. For many of us, perhaps, this is history, and when we see things about battles on television and in films, it brings home to us what happened. As the generations of young people go by, they need to be reminded of it, not in a bloodthirsty way but in a way that shows them the loss of life that took place and what happens in war, so that we can try to bring about a situation where there is far less war in future.

I very much welcome the centenary apprenticeship scheme that the Government have launched, which encourages 100 companies that existed 100 years ago, at the start of the first world war, to offer apprenticeships. That is a very good scheme.

I have strongly supported Devon county council in its commemorative project, Devon Remembers. We have to make sure that the memorials in all our villages are remembered, maintained, and brought up to a reasonable standard.

The Woodland Trust is planting four woods across the country, and that is a very good idea. With my farming background and my great belief in growing things, I think there is nothing better than a tree as a living thing that represents bringing things to life again after such a terrible war.

In Beer, a small village in my constituency on the coast of south Devon, men who were called up to the Royal Naval Reserve marched along the streets to a band as they went off to war. That will be commemorated on 3 August, 100 years on, when the same thing will happen again.

Even politicians were not immune. The hon. William Walrond was Member of Parliament for Tiverton from 1906—a little while before me. He died in 1915 while serving as a lieutenant with the Royal Army Service Corps during the first world war. His name is listed on the memorial to the dead in Westminster Hall and is on one of the 42 heraldic shields in the House of Commons Chamber commemorating each of the MPs killed during both world wars.

It is not possible for me to attend the Remembrance day services in all the villages and towns in my constituency, because they are so spread out, but I attend services in Honiton, Tiverton, Axminster and Seaton on an alternate basis. On reading the list of names, I find it poignant that the number of those killed in the first world war is probably two to three times the number of those killed in the second world war, and many of the family names of those who lost loved ones in the first world war are repeated on the list of those who died in the second world war. That is what brings it home to me. We need to remember that and create a memorial that is about not which country was right and which was wrong, but bringing those countries together. It is good that we now remember alongside not only France and Belgium, but Germany.

My mother is 89 and our family were fortunate, because five of her uncles went to war from farms in Somerset, with their horses, and all five of them returned. That was, of course, very unusual, and we were blessed that so many of our family returned. The relatives of many of my constituents did not return, so it is very good that we are holding this, not celebration, but memorial to what happened in the first world war. The treaty of Versailles led very much to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis and all that followed. Let us in the 21st century remember what happened in the 20th century and pray to God that we do not let it happen again.

14:19

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), particularly given his comments about the four proposed woods. Many of us will be able to picture photographs and Paul Nash’s paintings of the destroyed trees and their stumps. The proposal is an appropriate part of the commemoration process.

It is always a privilege to listen to a good maiden speech: we certainly heard one today, and I welcome the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to his place.

I am sure that most of us have listened to many excellent BBC programmes and heard many moving accounts from the men who served. I want to add to those accounts. No account is more poignant to me than the diary entry I am going to read now. It is dated 17 August 1914 and is from the diary of my great-uncle Lieutenant George Ward of the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry, who was killed in action on 24 August 1916. His cousin, Gordon Clarke, wrote to his brother—my grandfather—who was recovering from serious wounds received earlier in the battle of the Somme, that he had seen George a couple of days earlier and he was in good spirits. The date of that letter was 24 August, the day he was actually killed. There are so many stories like that, and Gordon was killed four days later.

My great-uncle wrote:

“Europe is plunged into an awful war, what the issue will be no one can say. What waste of human life.”

He also expressed concerns about the problems of the slums in Britain and the need for money to be spent there, and questioned whether the war would be just and sensible. For a very young man, he was prescient in his concern about the size and scale of what was about to happen. Nevertheless, even with his misgivings and concern for the poor in Britain, he felt that it was his duty to serve. He had been a member of the Congregational Church and the Boys Brigade and had been involved in adult school evening classes.

My great-uncle also wrote to his parents to tell them of the great conflict in his soul about joining up. He felt that he should be away with his fellow countrymen fighting a noble cause, which was difficult because his parents were staunch pacifists. In fact, my great-uncle George’s name is not on the local war memorial because his father would not allow it to appear. That is a cause of enormous sadness to me, but it was very strongly felt and that is why his name does not appear.

In my great-uncle’s letter to his parents, he said:

“Could we have reasonably remained neutral without prejudice to our national honour? I think not!”

That was the view of an ordinary man at the start of the conflict. Clearly he had his fears and he queried the jingoistic comments in some newspapers. He wrote about not wanting

“to crush that beautiful Germany of Beethoven, Schubert, Martin Luther and Schiller but we do have to smash the military caste.”

That was his view at the time and it is an interesting observation.

My great-uncle is buried near Albert, in the Peronne road cemetery, which I will visit this summer to pay my respects. I add my thanks to all those involved in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the work they do. I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) will stand the test of time: people should read and take note of it, because it was fascinating on many levels.

My grandfather was blown up on the Somme on 12 July. He came back very badly injured and could never get life insurance as a result. These were the days when post-traumatic stress disorder was not recognised. How did he cope with what he had done and what he had seen? It is very interesting and it is only as I grew older and when I was an adult that I understood some of his behaviour. He used to take himself off to his allotment to be by himself. When family were present and people were chatting, he would not involve himself in the conversation. He would go off and play the piano in a very solitary way. He never, ever talked about his experience. I think that was the only way in which he could manage and deal with the horrors he had seen. Everyone present probably has a similar family story. We also need to remember those on the home front, including the women who worked in the munitions factories, and the terrible risks they faced at the time.

Today we talk of urgent operational requirements, but the speed with which the Government moved following the outbreak of war and the way in which cities such as Plymouth responded was astonishing. We should remember that in those days, they sent telegrams rather than text messages. Local historian Derek Tait notes that by 9 August the Government had already taken over control of the railways and all regular schedules were suspended.

Five of the 14 Plymouth-based ships were sunk during the battle of Jutland, including HMS Indefatigable. She had seen action in the Dardanelles, but was sunk after her magazine exploded following two or three direct hits. Only two of her 1,019 crew members survived. When we think about the losses experienced in the trenches, let us also not forget the huge loss of life at sea or, indeed, the short life expectancy of pilots flying for the Royal Flying Corps in those early planes that seemed to be held together with nothing more than string. Flying boats also took off from Mount Batten. Plymouth is a very rare thing indeed—a place where all three forces have been based simultaneously. The city of Plymouth will, of course, be holding many commemorations. The city museum is running a series of exhibitions that I hope people will go along to.

HMS Warspite was launched in 1913 from Devonport, where she began her distinguished career as the most decorated ship in the Royal Navy. Plymouth was one of the most important ports and that remains the case today. Of course, our merchant navy also went in and out of Plymouth, Portsmouth and elsewhere. We should take time to consider the losses that it incurred and the bravery of those men who sailed and kept this country supplied.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the excellent speech she is making. Has she visited, as I have, the fantastic memorial to the merchant navy by the Tower of London? It is very moving—it lists the ships sunk and the loss of life on each of them—and does she agree that it is a very special memorial for a nation that has always depended on the sea?

[Alison Seabeck]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I urge people who come to London and visit the tower to go to see the memorial, particularly this year or during the coming four years.

Interestingly, the war coincided with the amalgamation of three towns—Plymouth, Devonport and Stonehouse—into what we now know as the city of Plymouth. It was as Plymouth that citizens rallied around to support the troops and to care for the injured. Some 120,000 soldiers mobilised out of Plymouth in just four days between 5 and 9 August. Like many other cities, we had Pals regiments.

I again thank the Plymouth Herald and local historians for drawing my attention to the Plymouth Argyle players who enlisted. Jack Cock earned the military medal for bravery in the field. At one stage, he was pronounced missing presumed dead, but, fortunately for his family and for the club, that was not the case. He went on to score 72 league goals, as well as to play for England. I am sure that the current Green Army are very proud of their club’s players, and of their bravery and sacrifice.

Many schools in the city were converted for a range of uses, including as hospitals, and the city saw the return of injured Australians from the dreadful battle of Gallipoli, as well as the opening of a hospital specifically for US servicemen. Troops from across the empire—from Canada, India and New Zealand—set off from Plymouth, and we should remember the sacrifices of those men alongside those of other allies.

Such a wealth of information on which to draw gives us a very varied picture of what happened and of how individuals responded to the dreadful challenges they faced and the sights they witnessed. I was therefore a little surprised to read an article sent by my great-uncle, Lieutenant Ward that was printed in the Romford Recorder, because he gave it very much warts and all; there was no censorship. He described feeling happy to be alive but went on in graphic detail to describe the shelling of his trench and wrote about a private

“wild-eyed, white and haggard looking, plastered with mud asking for urgent help for the ‘Durhams’ who have got it.”

He also talked about the bravery and calmness of the stretcher bearers, and particularly about a Corporal Swain, a man from Cornwall. It is therefore interesting that when I was on a walk along the cliffs at Pentire point in Cornwall, I came across a plaque which reads:

“For the Fallen

Composed on these cliffs, 1914”.

The words by Laurence Binyon have already been mentioned, but they are worth repeating:

“They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old.

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them.”

14:32

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who made a very personal speech. It is also a pleasure to speak in this debate, not least because it allows me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on an excellent maiden speech. It could not have been improved, even—I am sure that we all agree—with the insertion of the words “long-term economic plan”. He will have the pleasure of knowing that no hon. Member will ever have to look up his constituency when they want to refer to him in a debate.

I want to start by paying tribute to the fallen, of whom 6,000 were from my city of Portsmouth, and to the wounded, of whom 18,000 were from my city. It is right that we remember their sacrifice and commemorate them, but I wish to focus my remarks on those from my city who—today—have been of immense service in enabling us to do just that.

Mr Charles Haskell has given time, artefacts, money and effort to build the World War One Remembrance Centre at Fort Widley, which opened last year. I believe that it is the only world war one museum in the south of England, with the exception of the Imperial War museum. As well as a record of events and personal stories, it has artefacts donated by local people displayed there. Volunteers have recreated a trench experience, which has been a real draw with schoolchildren from across the region. It is a real labour of love, and I commend the work of Mr Haskell and his volunteers on their remarkable achievement.

I pay tribute to the vision of Bob Beech, Portsmouth football club and the researcher Alan Laishley, who have documented the stories and sacrifice of the Pompey Pals—my city’s response to the initiative of General Sir Henry Rawlinson. In August 1914, the Portsmouth citizens patriotic recruiting committee called on the men of the city not already occupied in essential war work to form Portsmouth’s own battalion. It was not long before the city—including the surrounding areas of Gosport, Havant, Waterlooville and Petersfield—had raised two battalions, which were formally known as the 14th and 15th Portsmouth Battalions, the Hampshire Regiment. Like the other Pals battalions, which formed a major part of Kitchener’s new Army, they served on the western front from the middle years of the war and faced a baptism of fire on the killing grounds of the Somme. By the end of the war, 1,400 of the Pompey Pals had made the ultimate sacrifice. In August, a memorial to them will be unveiled at Fratton Park, which will ensure that their sacrifices are remembered often.

I am very grateful to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has given my city’s museum a grant of £97,000 to support the Lest We Forget project. It has gathered volunteers from across Portsmouth to record and gather stories and to run community events to enable us all to remember. The whole city has responded to that and other initiatives. Churches, community groups, the creative industries and other organisations are all taking the opportunity to discover their local history and the stories of the time, as well as to ensure that future generations can do the same. I wish to pay tribute to all the work that is going on, which is largely being done by volunteers.

I pay tribute to the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), as well as of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), on whose committee on this House’s commemorations it has been my privilege to serve. It is right that so much effort is being made for this centenary, and I thank them not only for putting on national events, but for the opportunities and support that have assisted my constituents in creating some wonderful and lasting projects on this occasion—for the benefit of us all—to remember so many.

Lastly, we have quite rightly focused on world war one graves over the past few months and in this debate, and on second world war graves through the 70th anniversary of D-day and other such events, but by comparison with those white stones, the wooden crosses of those who died in service between the wars often form a stark and tatty contrast. I hope that we can create a similar effort to ensure that their last resting places are also cared for and maintained. They deserve no less.

14:38

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on his maiden speech, which I thought was excellent. I, too, welcome him to the House.

The first world war affected virtually every town and village in Britain. In every community there stands a memorial to those who lost their lives fighting for their country. In my constituency of Sedgefield, it is no different. From Hurworth on the River Tees in the south to the former colliery village of Thornley in the north, those who served and died are honoured and remembered.

At least 1,500 men from the constituency were killed in the war to end all wars. In the town of Ferryhill, more than 130 gave their lives; in the village of Chilton, more than 100; in the village of Thornley, 134; in Wingate, 147; and in Wheatley Hill, 96. All those communities had something in common, which was that they were all colliery villages, and many men volunteered for the armed forces rather than go down the pit. In the Army, they were sure to be fed and clothed, and they would be able to stand up straight. They of course believed that the war would be over in a few weeks.

I want to mention at this point two specific members of the armed forces from my constituency who fought in that war. The first is 2nd Lieutenant Jack Youll, a miner from Thornley who won the VC on June 15 1918 but was killed on 27 October at the battle of Vittorio Veneto in Italy. He did not survive the war. Thomas Kenny, a private in the 13th battalion of the Durham Light Infantry from Wheatley Hill received his VC from the King and went on to survive the war, spending the rest of his life working down the pits of Wheatley hill and Wingate.

I believe that the number of soldiers around the constituency commemorated on memorials to be an underestimate in many cases. The war dead of the Trimdons prove the case. In 1914 over 2,000 miners worked down the local pits, and the memorial on the wall of St Albans church in Trimdon Grange tells us that 450 from the Trimdons served in the war. The memorial also lists the names of 94 who did not return. There is also a memorial in Trimdon colliery that shares some of the same names. Research by Adam Luke, an Oxford university student from Trimdon village, has revealed that 199 men from the Trimdons were killed, the equivalent of 45% of all those who served. This is a staggeringly tragic statistic. The research details the regiment in which the men served and when they were killed. During the war years, there were just under 1,000 households in the Trimdons. Every household would have been affected in some way by the catastrophe of the European battlefield.

At the battle of the Somme, 11 sons from the Trimdons were killed on that first day of July. By the end of the Somme campaign, 39 families had lost a son, husband, brother or father, half of them with no known graves. For example, on 1 July, Private Martin Durkin served with the 26th Tyneside Irish Battalion, the Northumberland Fusiliers. His battalion set off across no man's land, marching, according to a war diary

“as if on parade under heavy machine gun and shell fire”.

Private Durkin did not return to Trimdon Grange, has no known grave and was one of his battalion's 489 casualties that day. Private Barnes, of the 1st Battalion, the Border Regiment, was from Lower Hogg street, Trimdon Grange. Private Barnes was one of the many, as the regiment's war diary records, who was

“wiped out by machine gun fire in our own wires.”

The battalion suffered 619 casualties, and Private Barnes rests at Mailly Wood cemetery in France. On the same day, Private Frederick Hunter of the Royal Fusiliers was one of his battalion's 227 casualties who were involved in fierce hand to hand combat. Mr and Mrs Hunter of Trimdon lost a son that day.

The horror of the Somme went on until mid-November. Private Fred Shorthouse was killed at the Somme on 8 November 1916, just days before the end of the campaign. Fred was the second son of Mr and Mrs Shorthouse of 7 Pringle street in Trimdon Colliery to be killed in the space of six months. His brother had been wounded at Gallipoli and died earlier that year on 29 May. Private Fred Shorthouse was also married. He lived with his wife Mary at Lawson street, Trimdon Colliery. Their son Arthur, was born on 4 April, 1914. Fred joined the 1st Battalion DLI in 1915. Shortly after, he wrote home to his mam and dad. He wrote:

“I was out to tea and supper on Saturday and was at a concert at the Chapel...and last night again at a lecture so you see mother I am not wasting my time... the battalion is going foreign in a week or two...but it is not to fight we are for garrison duty abroad...we have not to fight so you see everything works together for good...The only thing that will trouble me will be leaving the old homestead and the faces I love because you have been a good mother to me. I will never forget you but we just have to hope for better days to come”.

Private Fred Shorthouse has no known grave.

Many of the streets and terraces of the first world war Trimdons are no longer there, but it can still be recorded that Front street, Trimdon Grange, lost four men to the war. Railway row, Deaf Hill lost three. Cross street, Trimdon Foundry, lost three. Kelloe Winning lost four. Coffee Pott row, Trimdon Colliery, lost four. The Plantations, Trimdon Grange, lost five. The list goes on.

The research undertaken by Adam Luke will be placed in a roll of honour and will detail not just those from Trimdon who were killed during the first world war, but those killed in all the wars since. The Trimdons have given up 269 of their own in conflicts since 1914. I commend the work Adam has done to ensure that all those who have lost their lives from the Trimdons will be remembered.

At 10.30 pm on Monday 4 August, in St Mary Magdalene's Church in Trimdon Village—like in many other places of worship up and down the land—a candlelit vigil will take place to remember the 199 Trimdon men killed during the war to end all wars. The Trimdons’ loss was not unique, but it serves as a sobering reminder of the suffering our communities embraced between 1914 and 1918.

The horizons of the men from the Trimdons during those years were limited to going down the pit or going to war. All that lay on the horizon for the women of the Trimdons during those years was inevitably to live in a pit village and marry a pitman. In 2014, all the pits have closed and there is no world war. The horizon for the young people of Trimdon is broad and, for many, is lit with optimism. Adam Luke is the grandson of a bus driver and is now at Oxford university, something that could never have been dreamed of during Fred Shorthouse’s short life. The aspirations of our young people in the second decade of the 21st century are many and varied. It is down to us to ensure those aspirations are fulfilled in a world where neither death by coalfield disasters nor world wars will ever happen again.

I want to end my speech by returning to Private Fred Shorthouse and some words by his wife Mary. She could not afford a sturdy memorial to sustain his memory over the decades. Mary had instead a Remembrance card printed. It read:

“In loving memory of Private F Shorthouse, Beloved husband of Mary Shorthouse of Trimdon Colliery, Who fell in action, November 8th, 1916 aged 27 years. Deeply mourned by his loving wife and child. Gone, but not forgotten.

I hope someday my eyes shall see,

The face I loved so well,

I hope someday my hands shall clasp.

And never say farewell.”

We must ensure that our nation never says farewell to those who served and died for their country. We must never forget. That is why this debate and the commemorations to come are so important.

14:47

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

It is an honour to follow so many colleagues on both sides who have spoken so movingly, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) and the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), with whom I sparred gently over the years before I was retired out of the service. It is fitting that in this place, to which we all come from different walks of life and different parts of the country, our memories of our constituents or our families reflect exactly what happened 100 years ago, where so many people fought and died while disregarding their status in society. That is reflected here today.

May I also say what an honour it was to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)? I have to say that that was a marvellous speech. As someone who came to the House in a by-election I can say that it is all downhill from now on. The Whips will have taken note of a speech like that and will mark my hon. Friend down for plenty of statutory instrument and delegated legislation committees because that is what it is all about.

Just after my 18th birthday—

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

A long time ago.

[Sir John Randall]

It was indeed a long time ago and I can just about remember it. Just after my 18th birthday, I was standing, literally, in the footprints in the pavement in Sarajevo, by the river Miljacka, where Gavrilo Princip stood and fired those fateful shots that sparked the conflagration we are discussing today. At the time, it was chilling to think what had happened and what the consequences were. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and others have said, the causes of the war and who was to blame are matters for historians to discuss at great length. I have noticed that a certain amount of revisionism is going on in certain quarters, but I will leave that aside. Little did I realise then, of course, that Sarajevo, having been the trigger point for such conflict would in a few decades again become the very centre of more conflict and killing in Europe in our own era.

I am afraid to say that the folly of us all as human beings is that we never seem to learn the lesson of history. That is why these commemorations have to be held and why we have to educate generation after generation in the hope that somehow those mistakes will eventually be realised. We must remember, too, how easy it is to fall into violent conflict.

I congratulate the Government and the country as a whole on the way in which they are embarking on this anniversary. There will be many commemorations throughout the country—some grand, some major civic ones, some local, some individual ones. In my own small parish church, St Laurence in Cowley near Uxbridge, they are researching the names—not a great number—of those on the war memorial. We are still trying to track down the one lady whose name is on there—Olive Latham. We have not yet found out about her history, who she was and why she is on the memorial.

I am proud to say that when a memorial was built and consecrated in Uxbridge after the first world war, we called it a “peace memorial”. I grew up thinking that it might have been done in the ’70s—in a decade of awakening in which we felt that we should not be talking about war—but I found that that was the original name for our memorial. That is fitting, given that Uxbridge was, and to some extent still is, a centre of non-conformism. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) talked about her forebears in the congregational church, and that applies to me, too. For many of the local people, at heart, there was a degree of pacifism but perhaps there was a need for people to answer a stronger calling to serve their country.

As we have heard movingly from many Members, every family will have memories from those days that have been told down the generations. Both my grandfathers were in the forces. My maternal grandfather was in the Royal Flying Corps, principally because he was a woodwork teacher and the aeroplanes were made out of wood. He ended up doing important work mending the planes, so he did not have to serve on the front line. My paternal grandfather, Bert Randall, joined the Royal Horse Artillery and kept a diary. As a good Randalls, as I hope I have been, we always obey the rules. He wrote his diary every day, but it ceased as soon as he went overseas, when keeping a diary was not allowed.

It is fascinating to read what my grandfather had for breakfast, lunch, dinner and many other things from day to day, but it does not provide the sort of insightful, deep and philosophical thoughts of which we have heard from other diaries. I noticed from the diary that he started off with a boyish enthusiasm, joining up with his mates going off to war. While he was training, first in Reading and then in Norfolk, it is possible to see that enthusiasm being tempered, as he realised that some of his comrades were being sent off to France to fill the gaps as a result of all the casualties. The realisation that this was not a game was dawning on him.

One of the most poignant pieces of memorabilia pertaining to my grandfather is provided by a little note he sent. He was on the front line in France, manning a gun limber, and the horse was blown up underneath him, wounding him quite severely. He came home on a hospital train and I have the very note he scribbled out in pencil, which he gave to someone to deliver to his mother in Uxbridge, saying “I’m all right, I’m safe”. He said he did not know why he was being sent to Nottingham when he was only a few miles away from her, but he told her, “Don’t worry, Mum, I’m okay”. I find that incredibly moving, because these stories are all about people. I am sure that many of us here are parents and we can hardly begin to imagine the horror of seeing one’s children going off to war.

My grandfather never wanted to talk about the war—it could be an example of that non-conformism. On Remembrance Sundays, my father who had served in the second world war was very happy to wear a poppy, but my grandfather was not. I think it was the horrors he had seen. He never really wanted to talk about it. That stays with me.

Thankfully, both those grandparents returned home, but not everybody in Uxbridge was so lucky. Lord Hillingdon was one whose son, the honourable Charles Mills, died in action. He was killed in 1915 when Lord Hillingdon was the sitting Member of Parliament for Uxbridge. Everybody is affected and, as I said earlier, we have to educate every generation about what happened.

We have talked about some of the excellent schemes that have been put in place—that of the Institute of Education, for example—and there has been a concentration on the western front. It is quite easy to send schoolchildren across to France and Belgium to see the moving war cemeteries, the Menin Gate and so forth. We have to remember, however, that the war was fought on many fronts and that many people lost their lives throughout the world. In my own borough of Hillingdon, there is an obvious link with the wider world where graves of Australian and New Zealand servicemen can be found at Harefield church, which has an annual Anzac day service at which local school- children put a little Australian or New Zealand flag on the graves. Harefield is one of the smallest villages in Middlesex—it is still there, still a village and still in Middlesex—but it was home to two Victoria Cross recipients in the first world war.

Returning to my theme of remembering what happened elsewhere, I shall talk briefly about the conflict on the Salonika front. I shall do so not only because I studied the history and languages of the Balkans at university, but because I discovered recently the story of British women, particularly Scots but some English women, who served on that front. Although they are much feted in Serbia and elsewhere, we know very little about them over here—something we should try to rectify.

Those women mostly went out as nurses. One particular woman, not in the first flush of youth, had been rather snubbed over here. She wanted to join up and do nursing, but they did not think she had enough qualifications, so she joined the Red Cross and went over to Serbia, where along with various others who had volunteered, she was thrown into the middle of an horrendous typhus epidemic. In the early days of the war, more soldiers were dying there from typhus than they were from battle wounds. Many of the nurses and doctors succumbed to the disease, but these women gallantly turned some of these hospitals round.

Then, as the Serbian army pushed back, something began to happen in 1915. I hope that we shall take part in some of the commemorations of it next year, because the British were involved, although not as much as some. The Serbian nation—I say “nation” because this included the Parliament, the King, bishops, the army and many civilians—retreated across the Albanian mountains along to the Adriatic coast, and thence to the island of Corfu. It was a terrible retreat, during which hundreds of thousands of people died. It is interesting to note that the Albanian people allowed the Serbian army to pass freely. Some of the rivalries about which we hear today may not be as long-lasting as we probably assume.

At the time of the retreat, a nurse, Flora Sandes, decided to enlist in the Serbian army. She did not see why she, as a woman, should not be able, or allowed, to do what a man could do. The Serbian army personnel were a little bit sceptical, but they needed every person they could get. They thought that somehow having one of their allies—a British person—alongside them would be a morale-booster, and so it proved to be. Flora joined up as a private, and she did not get many special favours. She was on that terrible retreat, and she went to Corfu. After the French and the British had enabled those on the retreat to convalesce and re-equip themselves, they arrived at the Salonika front. Flora Sandes was very seriously injured.

As I have said, I do not think that we in this country have fully recognised that, at a time when women did not have the vote and it was very rare for them to be doctors, women such as Flora Sandes not only wanted to do such work, but were given an opportunity to do it in a place that was not their own. There is an excellent book on the life of Flora Sandes and others, and I have to say that the more I read such stories, the more of a feminist I become. That may seem unlikely, but it is true.

The Scots did not only send nurses. They, as well as the French, took some of the young people from Serbia who had gone on that terrible retreat—many of them had been orphaned—into their homes, where they were looked after. I think that some connections still exist. Scotland took a very proud part in those events, and is remembered very fondly in the Balkans as a result.

We know that we must engage in these commemorations for the reasons that I have already given, but I also remember an experience that I had a few years ago, just before we had to vote on the war in Iraq. I took two of my children—it was half term—to the site of the battle of Waterloo, and also to the cemeteries and trenches of the first world war. I am not a great military historian like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland, but I think it important for people to know about their history.

When I saw, face to face, the reality—the enormity—of what armed conflict means in terms of human life, it became very difficult for me to say that I had the right to send people to their deaths. There are times when we have to do it, and I recognise that: I am not a pacifist by nature. However, it makes us all have to think, because making such decisions is not an easy matter. For that reason, I am thankful that I had the opportunity to make that visit.

Let us go forward into these commemorations. Let us try to ensure, for the sake of those men and women who gave their lives—and those men and women whose lives were ruined for ever because of all the trauma, which might have been gassing or might have been just what they saw, and were never really mended afterwards—that those lives were not given in vain. We must do everything we can to try to avoid the follies that we end up going into.

15:04

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

I want to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid by Members in all parts of the House to the millions of people, of all nationalities, who lost their lives during the first world war. I must admit, however, that I have been somewhat uncomfortable with the way in which debates surrounding the commemorations of the “great war” have been framed in recent months.

At the end of October 2012, my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and I tabled an early-day motion criticising the Government’s decision to spend £50 million on plans to commemorate the centenary of the beginning of the war, in an attempt, as the Prime Minister put it, to replicate the national “spirit” that marked the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations. We argued then that, in view of the fact that an estimated 10 million soldiers and 7 million civilians had lost their lives and 20 million had been seriously wounded, any attempt to observe the centenary in a jubilant manner would be deeply insensitive. With that in mind, I have been greatly heartened by the themes that have featured in today’s debate.

This should not be, as some have argued, an opportunity to celebrate the “best of British” spirit. It should not be used as an excuse to redraft the national curriculum so that schoolchildren, in England at least, are taught a skewed, victorious version of history. The first world war should rather be remembered as the unnecessary massacre that it was. It was, after all, the first industrialised war of its kind, and marked the first occasion on which chemical gas, machine guns and tanks had been used on such a scale.

Men and boys rushed to enlist, thinking that it would “all be over by Christmas”. The military leaders who led them into battle were utterly unprepared for how long the conflict would last, and for the horrors that trench warfare would bring about. The fate that awaited them, as Wilfred Owen had it, was that they would “die as cattle”. The sheer numbers of the dead meant that the Army was forced to review the way in which dead soldiers were buried. Rather than there being mass burials and unmarked graves, each soldier’s name was recorded and then engraved on one of the war memorials that are to be found in villages and towns throughout Europe.

In another of Owen’s celebrated poems, “Dulce et Decorum Est”, the poet exposes “the old lie” that it is sweet and noble to die for one’s country. However, quite apart from the horrendous ways in which the young men died—which was, of course, what the poet was referring to in his closing couplet—this was not a war that sprung from noble causes. On the contrary, it was inspired by competing imperial foreign policies. Speaking at an event in Bosnia and Herzegovina earlier this month, the Nobel peace prize winner Mairead Maguire argued that

“The shot fired in Sarajevo a century ago set off, like a starting pistol, a race for power, two global wars, a Cold War, a century of immense, rapid explosion of death and destruction.”

The worst lie of all was the claim that this would be the war to end all wars. In hindsight, we see that the end of the conflict in 1918 only marked the prelude to mass unemployment, depression and, eventually, a second world war.

During a period of convalescence in July 1917, the soldier and poet Siegfried Sassoon wrote a letter to his commanding officer renouncing the war effort. Copies of the letter were printed in newspapers under the title “Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration”, and Sassoon’s words were quoted during a debate in this place by Hastings Lees-Smith, MP. In his letter, Sassoon lamented the fact that the war

“on which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest.”

He further added:

“I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.”

He only escaped a court martial by being diagnosed with shell shock and declared unfit for service.

A year later, the Army officer Charles Carrington said:

“England was beastly in 1918…Envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness, fear and cruelty born of fear seemed the dominant passions of the leaders of nations in those days.”

A recent editorial in The Irish Times summarises the political capital of the debate rather well. The piece, published on 18 June this year, points out that commemorations of the first world war have

“been a battle for the control of memory as much as it has been about remembering those who were killed.”

It also argues:

“Today, the fight to control history continues, since the war is seen though the prism of the growing debate about the need to define and assert ‘British values’ in a changing cultural landscape.”

That is perhaps what Jeremy Paxman had in mind when he commented recently:

“The events now are so built upon by writers and attitudinisers and propaganda that the actual events seem submerged.”

It is fitting, of course, that part of the commemorations will include the reopening of the Imperial War museum. The museum fulfils a highly important role in educating generations about the realities of war, and it should be commended on the work that it does, but we should not forget that when the museum first opened on 9 June 1920, its chairman, the right hon. Sir Alfred Mond MP, said:

“The museum was not conceived as a monument to military glory, but rather as a record of toil and sacrifice.”

Those in public life today would do well to keep that in mind.

During debates on the Imperial War Museum Act 1920, Lieutenant Commander Joseph Kenworthy MP said:

“We should forbid our children to have anything to do with the pomp and glamour and the bestiality of the late War, which has led to the death of millions of men. I refuse to vote a penny of public money to commemorate such suicidal madness of civilisation as that which was shown in the late War.”—[Official Report, 12 April 1920; Vol. 127, c. 1465.]

A distinction should be made, of course, between celebrating the pomp, glamour and bestiality of war, and commemorating those who died. I am a firm supporter of the campaign to erect a Welsh memorial in Flanders, which has already raised over £100,000 of its £150,000 target. I understand that the Welsh Government have also pledged money to the project.

The memorial, which will be made from stone donated by Craig yr Hesg quarry in Pontypridd, will be unveiled during a ceremony on 16 August this year. In May, my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) hosted a reception in this place to raise awareness of the campaign in Parliament. I was glad to lend my support then and do so again now, because it is only right that a memorial of this kind should be in place. Tens of thousands of Welshmen died during the war, and every village in Wales was left in mourning. Over 4,000 Welshmen died in Mametz wood alone in July 1916, most from Monmouthshire and Breconshire. Indeed, it is bitterly ironic that some of those killed had survived the mining disaster in Senghennydd in 1913. Owen Sheers has written a poem about Mametz, which is now on the GCSE curriculum, and his play, “Mametz”, is being staged by National Theatre Wales this week in Usk.

It is pertinent, though, that the new memorial will be in Flanders, where the majority of Welshmen lost their lives—including our celebrated poet, Hedd Wyn. That was the pen name of Ellis Humphrey Evans, who was awarded the prestigious chair prize in the Eisteddfod of 1917 for his winning awdl, “Yr Arwr”, or “The Hero”. Evans was killed during the battle of Pilckem ridge on 31 July 1917. During the chairing ceremony the following September, when his poem was declared the winner, it was also announced that he had died in battle, and the chair was draped in a black cloak. Ever since, Evans has been referred to as “Bardd y Gadair Ddu”—the bard of the black chair. In a moving poem of that name, R. Williams Parry imagines that the arms of the chair itself are reaching

“mewn hedd hir am un ni ddaw”,

which translates as

“in everlasting peace, for one who will never come”.

I should note that the English meaning of “Hedd Wyn” is white, or blessed, peace.

I would, of course, wish to associate myself with the tributes made to those who died, and I believe that it is only right that their sacrifice should be commemorated, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon and I argued in our early-day motion, it would surely be more appropriate to commemorate the end of the war in 2018, rather than its beginning.

In “Goodbye to All That” in 1929, Robert Graves said of the Armistice:

“The news sent me out walking alone along the dyke above the marshes of Rhuddlan…cursing and sobbing and thinking of the dead.”

Even peace, for some, served only to emphasise the futility of the war and the senselessness of so many dead.

This year’s commemorations should provide an opportunity for sombre reflection, for pausing and for remembering those who died, but we should not forget the pity of war and the pointlessness of the conflict that began in 1914. As history has shown, it was far from being the war to end all wars.

I would like to end by quoting an englyn by William Ambrose:

“Celfyddyd o hyd mewn hedd—aed yn uwch

O dan nawdd tangnefedd;

Segurdod yw clod y cledd,

A’i rwd yw ei anrhydedd.”

The closing couplet translates as:

“Idleness is the glory of the sword

And rust is its distinction”.

15:14

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on a passionate speech, although I disagree that the Government have struck the wrong balance. As we have heard from those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches, a careful balance has been struck in these commemorations.

I join in the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his excellent maiden speech. I met him some time before he became a candidate in Newark, so I looked forward to him coming to Parliament. He struck a good tone in his comments, and I must admit to a twinge of jealously, not at the warm reception that he received in Parliament, but because he was talking about fighting to improve his rail services, and his are more than twice the distance from London than mine in Worcester, although the journey takes about half the time. I look forward to working with him to promote the interests of business and fight for fairer funding for schools in both our counties.

It is truly an honour to speak in a debate on such a significant commemoration, and on an event that has been variously described as a catastrophe, the great war, and, for some years, the war to end all wars; as so many people have said, that sadly turned out not to be the case. The commemorations of the centenary will cover a sequence of events that profoundly changed our nation, each of our constituencies, and the world. As constituency MPs, almost all of us will take part in Remembrance Sunday services, and for me, it is one of the proudest but most humbling moments to take my place each year in Worcester cathedral for the moving service of remembrance. In recent years, those services have attracted ever larger crowds, and those at the Cenotaph service outside the cathedral now dwarf the packed congregation inside. Later I will touch on some of the local aspects of commemoration that will take place in Worcester, and my recent visit to Commonwealth war graves in Worcester.

First, however, I will focus on one of the most positive aspects of commemoration, which is the way it can bring communities together, heal the wounds of the past, and remind us of the things that unite us, rather than those that divide us. The Minister touched on the importance of the commemorations to Ireland, both Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) made an excellent speech on those issues. As Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Northern Ireland Office and someone who attended my first British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly earlier this year, that point has been impressed on me very clearly.

It is truly remarkable that last year the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stood alongside the First Minister and the Taoiseach for a service of remembrance at Enniskillen, and the Minister of State joined Ministers of the Republic of Ireland in laying wreaths at both Glasnevin and Islandbridge. It is perhaps more remarkable still that last year’s Remembrance Sunday service in Belfast was attended by the Sinn Fein Lord Mayor of that city—the first time in which that party has formally taken part in the event.

Those steps toward reconciliation are welcome, and I commend not only the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, but his work in bringing the exhibition “Fields of Battle—Lands of Peace” to Parliament; it echoes the theme of reconciliation through remembrance.

It was good to see Her Majesty the Queen on her visit this week to Northern Ireland laying a wreath at Coleraine and launching the programme for the Royal British Legion’s commemorations in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. I am glad that that programme also includes the service at St Anne’s cathedral in Belfast and the Woodland Trust work in County Londonderry. It is especially appropriate that the programme of commemorations has funded the extensive restoration of HMS Caroline, which, as Lord Trimble said yesterday, is the last surviving veteran of the battle of Jutland.

It is welcome that the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly is planning on holding its next plenary in Ashford, so that Members from the Dáil, this Parliament, and all the other Parliaments represented in that body can travel to the first world war battlefields, pay tribute at the Island of Ireland peace park, and read the pledge inscribed on a pillar in that park. If the House will excuse me, I think it is worth while reading into the record the wording of that pledge:

“From the crest of this ridge, which was the scene of terrific carnage in the First World War on which we have built a peace park and Round Tower to commemorate the thousands of young men from all parts of Ireland who fought a common enemy, defended democracy and the rights of all nations, whose graves are in shockingly uncountable numbers and those who have no graves, we condemn war and the futility of war. We repudiate and denounce violence, aggression, intimidation, threats and unfriendly behaviour.

As Protestants and Catholics, we apologise for the terrible deeds we have done to each other and ask forgiveness. From this sacred shrine of remembrance, where soldiers of all nationalities, creeds and political allegiances were united in death, we appeal to all people in Ireland to help build a peaceful and tolerant society. Let us remember the solidarity and trust that developed between Protestant and Catholic soldiers when they served together in these trenches.

As we jointly thank the Armistice of 11 November 1918, when the guns fell silent along this western front—we affirm that a fitting tribute to the principles for which men and women from the Island of Ireland died in both World Wars would be permanent peace.”

Amen to that.

I would like to return to matters closer to home, and in particular to my constituency of Worcester. Alongside the privilege of attending each year’s Remembrance Sunday service, I have also been honoured to go each year as MP to the city’s Gheluvelt park and attend the commemorations that take place there of a battle that may sound unfamiliar to many in this House, but which is firmly inscribed in the honours list of the Worcestershire Regiment.

On 31 October we will mark the 100th anniversary of the battle of Gheluvelt, part of the first battle of Ypres in 1914, in which the 2nd Battalion the Worcestershire Regiment advanced against overwhelming odds and, despite other forces retreating all around them, stopped the Germans’ advance and thwarted their attempt to break through the lines. That intervention was crucial. The cost of the attack was terrible: in a single day, the battalion lost 187 men, including three officers. Field Marshal Sir Claud Jacob said of the action:

“Let it never be forgotten that the true glory of the fight at Gheluvelt lies not in the success achieved but in the courage which urged our solitary battalion to advance undaunted amid all the evidence of retreat and disaster to meet great odds in a battle apparently lost”.

To this day, one of the finest parks in Worcester commemorates that action. I will be there this October, along with the Royal British Legion, Worcestershire’s regimental association, the Mercian Regiment and other units that fought alongside it. The commemorations of the bravery of the Worcesters on that day will rightly be balanced with remembrance of the tragic loss of life.

Growing up in a small village in rural Worcestershire, I was struck by the fact that the only names on our little war memorial in Abbots Morton were not from big battles such as Ypres or the Somme, but from somewhere that, as a child, I would have found difficult to find on a map—Mesopotamia. It is worth remembering, as so much focus is on the western front, the wider scope of the great war, and the fact that thousands of British and imperial soldiers and sailors fought, suffered and died in far off places such as Iraq, Gallipoli, Salonika—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) pointed out—Tanzania and the south Atlantic.

For much of the great war, the Worcestershire Yeomanry were deployed, as were the Glamorgan Yeomanry, which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned, in what we now call the middle east, fighting the Ottoman empire. For all that most people of my generation have seen “Lawrence of Arabia”, it is important that we should not allow the further-flung elements of the war to be forgotten. I am pleased that the Worcestershire regimental museum contains displays about the war in the desert. In these days when we closely follow such worrying news from that part of the world, we should remember the role that Britain played in shaping the modern middle east, understand that interventions did not start in 2003, and bring a greater historical appreciation to our understanding of the region. We should also remember that alongside the more recent sacrifices that our armed forces have made in Iraq there were previous generations who fought, sweated, suffered and died in that land.

One Worcestershire hero who fought the Ottomans was Private Fred Dancox, who went on to become the city’s one and only Victoria Cross winner. Little is known about his life before the war, but he fought at Gallipoli and, having survived the horrors of that brutal battle, he earned eternal fame by his actions back on the western front at the third battle of Ypres, better known as Passchendaele. His citation for the Victoria Cross reads:

“For most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty in attack…this man entered the ‘Pillbox’ from the rear, threatening the garrison with a Mills bomb. Shortly afterwards he reappeared with a machine gun under his arm, followed by about 40 enemy. The machine gun was brought back to our position by Private Dancox, and he kept it in action all day. By his resolution, absolute disregard of danger and cheerful disposition, the morale of his comrades was maintained at a very high standard under extremely trying circumstances.”

That citation was published in the London Gazette on 23 November 1917. At that time, Private Dancox had been granted leave to return home to Worcester. A civic reception was prepared, and the story goes that the mayor and council were even waiting at the station to meet him. Tragically, he was never to arrive. On 30 November 1917, Private Dancox VC was killed in action. A few years ago, I attended the unveiling of a plaque to the memory of Fred Dancox, and it is appropriate that our new TA centre in Worcester has been named in his honour.

The programme of commemorations in Worcester will include the 150th anniversary of our Territorial Army unit, 214 Battery Royal Artillery, based at Dancox house, which also played its part in the great war, and on 16 August Worcester will witness a military parade to celebrate that milestone. We will also celebrate the life and achievements of one of the city’s most famous sons, the Reverend Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy, better known as Woodbine Willie. This pastor served with distinction as a forces chaplain and brought comfort to the troops over a number of years, doling out cigarettes in a way that may be frowned on today but was clearly much appreciated by the soldiers of the day. Although he joined up with conviction to serve his country, his experiences at the front convinced him of the futility of war, and in its aftermath he became a passionate pacifist and Christian socialist. His legacy is well remembered in Worcester, and it is right that the programme includes exhibitions on his life and work, as well as a service at our cathedral in his memory.

Another Worcester character who will be remembered is Vesta Tilley, who became known as “Britain’s best recruiting sergeant”. This locally born music hall actress used her controversial performances, dressed as a soldier or sailor and singing songs such as “The Army of Today’s All Right” and “Jolly Good Luck to the Girl Who Loves a Soldier”, to drum up recruits, and sometimes enrolled volunteers during her performances. I was recently very moved to hear, as part of the BBC’s excellent commemorative work, a recording of a war widow whose husband was recruited from under her nose at one of these performances. An exhibition about Vesta Tilley’s life and work starts this month and will run into September at the Commandery.

Today at the Commandery, which hosted Charles I’s headquarters at the battle of Worcester, the door is being opened to the Worcester public so that they can bring their war stories, photographs and memorabilia, in order to make sure that they are included in the county’s major project, Worcestershire World War One Hundred, one of the most significant Heritage Lottery Fund programmes outside London.

The vibrant arts and cultural scene in Worcester is also playing its part. Last Friday at our Guildhall, under Woodbine Willie’s portrait, I attended the launch of the Worcestershire literary festival and heard excellent poems on the theme of “a prelude to war”. This year’s Three Choirs festival will host a performance of Britten’s “War Requiem”, talks on how the war influenced Edward Elgar, and a specially commissioned piece by the German composer Torsten Rasch that is to be called “A foreign field”. Our museums will be hosting special exhibitions, and our schools will be running projects to research local history related to the great war.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) in congratulating the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on the work it is doing to promote understanding and visits to the war graves in our city.

My generation is perhaps the last that will have had any living contact with the generation that remembered the great war. I recall my grandmother on my father’s side telling me what it felt like to be bombed by a zeppelin in east London, and my mother talking about how, in the 1960s, her grandfather still felt the effects of having been gassed. The passing of the years and the generations should not stand in the way of our understanding or our remembering the heroism and the sacrifice, the triumphs and the tragedies, and the long-term consequences of the first world war. I congratulate the Minister and the shadow Front Benchers on setting out such a fitting and appropriate programme of commemorations, and I am proud that Worcester will be playing its part.

15:26

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate, with speeches of knowledge, poignancy and passion from all Members. I do, however, want to single out the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). I, too, came into this House after a long-run by-election, so I know what he has gone through. I wish my maiden speech had been as good as his; it marked him out as somebody from whom we will look forward to hearing more. I think he will have a long and strong period of time in this House and I wish him all the very best.

I am proud that in my maiden speech I mentioned the bombardment of the Hartlepools, and I want to return to that today, because 16 December this year will mark the centenary of that event. At 10 minutes past 8 on the morning of 16 December 1914, three German battle-cruisers started firing shells off the coast of the north-east towards Hartlepool and West Hartlepool. A total of 1,150 shells were fired over a 40-minute period, and 118 people, including 37 children, were killed in the bombardment and many hundreds were injured.

I believe it is right for this House and the country to commemorate that event, because I believe it had profound and historic implications at local, national and international level. Certainly, at the local level my constituency experienced the horror and the carnage. The scene that morning in hundreds of Hartlepool homes will have been replayed countless times before and since: a mad rush to get children to school on time—children who were probably thinking about the imminent arrival of Christmas a mere nine days later. What is not so usual, thankfully, is the confusion and terror that must have arisen after the shells started raining down.

As I said earlier, 118 people in Hartlepool and West Hartlepool were killed, including 37 children. Belk street, which is still standing and is still inhabited, was particularly badly affected. That is where the youngest victim, Benjamin Lofthouse, died; he was just seven months old. Families were torn apart. The Cornforths lost three generations to the bombardment on that day. Peter Whitecross, aged eight, and his brother John, aged six, were killed together. Sarah and Hannah Jobling were aged just six and four. William and Andrew Peart were aged just five and two. The Dixon family lost three children that day: George, aged 14; Margaret, aged eight; and Albert, aged seven.

I hope those names and ages make clear to the House the big scar that the bombardment left on my constituency. Many of the streets where the shells landed are still in existence and still lived in. The families who suffered in the bombardment still live in the town. The list of people who died in the attack—the Cornforths, the Dixons, the Horselys, the Hunters—are strong Hartlepool families with long lineages. They are very familiar to me as long-standing Hartlepool families whose direct descendants are still my constituents. Although the bombardment of the Hartlepools was a century ago, in my constituency it seems much more recent.

The bombardment also has national importance. It was the first attack on the mainland in the first world war. It also saw the first soldier to be killed on British soil since the battle of Culloden in 1746. Private Theo Jones was a local lad who lived in Ashgrove avenue. He enlisted in the Durham Light Infantry, and was one of six members of 18th Battalion DLI to be killed on duty that day. Private Jones was 29 years old. He had left Hartlepool to become a teacher in Leicestershire but had returned home to west Hartlepool to serve in his local regiment. He had been one of the first to volunteer in those heady summer days of August 1914. His pupils had given him a prayer book on his leaving, and a shard of the shell that had hit Private Jones in the chest was found lodged in the prayer book he was carrying in his breast pocket. That prayer book will be included in a programme of events to be organised by the museum of Hartlepool and located at the Heugh gun battery, on the actual spot where British troops, including Private Jones, repelled the German attack. That has been made possible through an Arts Council grant, for which I am very grateful.

The bombardment also has implications beyond local or even national considerations, however. The first world war was four months old at the time of the bombardment, which changed warfare and military tactics massively, arguably for ever. Following the bombardment, the enemy realised the panic and disruption, loss of support for Government and sapping of public morale that direct attacks on civilian populations could unleash. Changing technology meant that warfare was not confined merely to the armed forces in somewhat distant trenches on a foreign field; the full horrors of war could be experienced by innocent men, women and children on civvy street. The bombardment of the Hartlepools was in this regard the unwanted architect of the blitz of the second world war and the terrorist atrocities of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

It is for those reasons that the bombardment merits national coverage and strong recognition through first world war commemorations. I very much hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate and reflect on the bombardment of the Hartlepools on the centenary, 16 December. Each year at 10 past 8 on that day, my constituency holds a ceremony, organised by the Heugh Gun Battery Trust, to mark the occasion of the bombardment. This year, as the House will appreciate, it should be very special. I hope that, at the very least, the Secretary of State for Defence will attend, along with other Members; they will be made very welcome. I also hope that the Government will mark the centenary in a respectful and appropriate manner. In this way, the bombardment of the Hartlepools will be given the national recognition and commemoration that the attack, but most of all the lives lost in my constituency almost 100 years ago, fully deserve.

15:33

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who reminded us in his excellent speech that the losses of the first world war occurred not just in Gallipoli or in the trenches, but at home as well. The raid on the Hartlepools was a terrible story that is well remembered now and had a huge impact on people at the time. In Folkestone in 1917, more than 60 people were killed in a single air raid. German planes that were looking for London dropped their bombs on the way back to the continent, killing innocent women and children—including children who were only a few months old—in the process. That was a tragic and terrible incident, and we should remember that there were important losses at home, as well as those on the western front. One important thing we will find during this centenary period is that we have forgotten lots of things about the war. I am talking about stories of individual heroism and of the way communities worked together, which were not part of the big narrative and are not found in the history books, but which are very important local, community stories. During these centenary years we will have the chance to tell them again.

My main focus as the MP for Folkestone and Hythe—I also declare my interest as chairman of Step Short, the first world war centenary charity in Folkestone—has been to mark the role that Folkestone played in the war effort as the main port of embarkation from these islands to the western front. There were more than 10 million movements of service personnel through Folkestone port during the war; those were people from all around the world, as well as from all corners of these islands. During this centenary we should remember that more than 1 million men from the Indian subcontinent, as well as people from China and south America, fought in the allied war effort and cause during the war. As part of Folkestone’s commemorations, we are certainly remembering those people, too.

We should also remember that we not only sent people out to fight, but gave comfort to people seeking refuge. Folkestone received tens of thousands of refugees from Belgium in the first weeks of the war; these people were fleeing for their lives, fleeing persecution and fleeing the advance of the enemy troops through their country— through their homeland. They came to this country and we gave them a home. These people went all across the UK, but tens of thousands of them stayed in Folkestone during the war. A great painting, painted in 1915, commemorating the arrival of the Belgian refugees sits in the town hall in Folkestone, and they are a very important part of our community’s story about the work people did during the war.

The main community effort we have supported to mark the centenary has been the building of a memorial arch that will stand over the route that those millions of soldiers marched to the ships waiting in the harbour to take them on their journey to France. The walk down the Slope road, as it was known then—after the war it was renamed the Road of Remembrance—to the harbour was for many the final journey leaving this country. Wilfred Owen spent his last night in England at the Grand hotel in Folkestone, billeted there before making that journey. So we wanted to do something that marked that route and that journey, and we are building a memorial arch over the route they took. As I mentioned earlier, this debate is particularly timely because that arch is being assembled today and will be in place by the end of the evening. On 4 August, His Royal Highness Prince Harry will be coming to Folkestone to dedicate the arch as part of the centenary commemorations and that centenary day itself.

I remember going on a battlefield tour when I was at school, 25 years ago, with my history teacher Mr Fitzgerald, who is still head of history at St Mary’s Roman Catholic high school in Herefordshire. He has been running exactly the same battlefield tour for 25 years, taking schoolboys and schoolgirls to Tyne Cot and Vimy ridge to see things for themselves and walk in the footsteps of the soldiers. That trip had a profound impact on me; one has to stand on the site and experience it. Our school always went in the autumn. Typically for that part of Europe, it is often blowy, cold and wet. Visitors get the tiniest insight into and glimpse of what it might have been like to have been standing there during the war. We could never truly know what it was like; we cannot imagine, in our lives today, what it must have been like to fight in that war. There is something sacred about these places, which is why it is right that the Government are supporting schools and encouraging them to take such trips, in order to get more schools to go to the battlefields to see them for themselves.

That is why we in Folkestone also wanted to dedicate a space that was relevant to the war and the experience of the soldiers—the place they marched down. They marched down the Road of Remembrance, they could see the ships in the harbour waiting to take them; they could see France, where they were going; and, in the distance, they were probably able to hear the guns at the front, which were only 100 miles away. They were not looking with wonder across the channel at the boats crossing; they were looking across a frontier to a very hostile place they were journeying to.

Throughout this debate we have heard stories of people who won great awards for their gallantry—Victoria Crosses and other military medals. Many of them were not servicemen before the war. They were not professional, trained soldiers. They gave up their lives at home, their families and their livelihoods, and they sacrificed themselves. They demonstrated incredible bravery, fighting for themselves, their communities and their families to defend their homeland. They demonstrated the incredible depths of resilience and bravery that probably everyone has. When we consider this first world war centenary period, we must ask ourselves whether we could make those sacrifices today. Could we do as people did 100 years ago? Are we too cynical? I think the answer is absolutely not. What the first world war demonstrated was the incredible resilience of people and the sacrifices that they were prepared to make in a good cause. The same is true of the 9/11 attacks in New York. Did those firemen wake up that morning thinking that they would have to run into a collapsing building while people were running out of it? They did their job out of duty and at the moment in time they were called to do it. People did the same in the first world war, and that is one of the things that we remember.

Another important reason for remembering the first world war is the message that emerged, which was that we were all in it together. It was a war fought not just by armies but by societies and nations. We relied on everyone’s efforts. There was mass conscription into the armed forces. We had a field army of more than a million people, all of whom were trained and fit. They had a diet and an education that enabled them to take part in the war effort. The people who could not fight in the war worked in the munitions factories and in the fields. Everyone was part of the war effort. The ability to put an army in the field and to win such a war required the participation of the entire population. It also required people of genius, inspiration and ingenuity to design new weapons, new techniques and new technologies that would make winning that war possible. To fight and win such a conflict required the resources of the entire population, and the entire country had to be strong.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an impressive speech. Will he join me in saluting the work of the charity Never Such Innocence, which is marking the massive contribution made by the Dominions, as they then were, towards the great war? It is ably led by Edward Wild and Lady Lucy French, whose great-great grandfather was Field Marshall Sir John French.

[Damian Collins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was about to mention Never Such Innocence. The charity, which has been working closely with Australia house, has done a fantastic project of work this year, and I hope that it continues. I know that, like me, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is also a supporter of the charity. I am grateful that the charity made a contribution to the Step Short project in Folkestone, and that it provided support to military charities such as Combat Stress.

It is interesting to note that Combat Stress marks its own centenary in 2019. It was formed to deal with the unique challenges, injuries and needs of people coming back from the war. It was only after the first world war that we really understood the nature of stress—mental stress from the battlefield—and the fact that it required special treatment. Combat Stress is a very relevant and important charity in its own right, and it is significant that it should be linked to the good work of Never Such Innocence.

I also want to underline the role of the Commonwealth in the war effort, especially that of the Anzac troops. Anzac day is marked now in increasingly growing numbers in this country as well as around the world and is of huge significance and importance to the history of the Commonwealth as well as to Australia and New Zealand.

I want to come back to the point about how there was this sense during the war of us all being in it together. The lesson of the war was that we need a strong society, and that to function properly there should be rewards and benefits for the whole of society coming out of that war. We also learned that the ability of a nation to fight wars in the future would depend on the strength not just of the armed forces, but of the whole country, and that our duties and responsibilities lie beyond our shores. We should fight not just wars of defence but wars to uphold the values of democracy and freedom that we have in our country. We went to war not just to defend ourselves but to liberate other people from oppression. There can be no nobler cause than that.

The first world war changed the whole of this country; it changed society. Anyone who had lived in the 20 years before the war would not have seen a huge amount of change before 1914. If they had come back to this country 20 years after the war had ended, they would have noticed that society had changed for ever. That is why these centenaries are so important. It is to remember that period of change.

Finally, I thank the Minister and the Government for the support they have given to the Step Short project. I also thank the Ministry of Defence, which is providing parading soldiers and the band of the Brigade of Gurkhas for the commemorations in Folkestone on 4 August. Soldiers will march through the memorial arch in the steps of the soldiers who went to war. It is right that the armed forces should be involved in the commemoration of the war. We are in no way seeking to make this a military occasion or to glorify war; we just want to remember that it is the servicemen who made the sacrifice and got on the ships to go and fight, and they did so in the service of their country and in the service of others. It is right that they should be involved in the commemorations that day.

I am also grateful for the support of Shepway district council and Kent county council, who provided financial support for the project. More than half of the money that has been raised by Step Short has been given as private donations. Private organisations have raised money. It is right that local authorities should support heritage projects in their areas, but also that we should seek broader support. It is right to recognise that the greater part of the support that we have received has come from other sources.

I thank the property company Lend Lease, which has provided its services for free to build the memorial arch in Folkestone. They have given a dedicated team to project manage it. That is an enormous contribution on its part. The company exemplifies the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) that this is a Commonwealth effort. Lend Lease is based in Australia, but it is giving its resources to support the project in Folkestone. It has also led on the work to restore the Imperial War museum.

I would also like to thank—this is a bit of an Oscar thank you speech, but I would like to get it on the record—the large number of organisations that have helped us with our centenary project in Folkestone. The National Army museum has brought an exhibition to Folkestone that tells the story from enlistment to embarkation. Parts of their collections have been brought to Folkestone and the museum has worked with local historians and history groups to put on the exhibition, which opened on Tuesday this week and will run for 10 months. It provides an excellent educational resource telling the story of going to war. I hope that the people who come to Folkestone to see the memorial arch will also take a look at that exhibition and that it will complement the exhibition that will be put on in the Sassoon room in Folkestone library shortly, which tells the story of the Folkestone community during the war in pictures.

I also urge all my Kent colleagues to look at the excellent online resource called Kent in World War One. We are asking people to share their data and information, pictures and stories. Such local projects and the online work of the Imperial War museum are merging official data—war records, service records and medal records and charts—with personal data such as diaries, letters, stories and photographs. That will create a wonderful resource, bringing those stories together.

It is fantastic not just to hear a citation for bravery and read someone’s war record but to hear a personal story. The Kent in World War One project maps that on local streets so that people can see what people who lived in the road where they live now did in the war, bringing the stories alive in the community. It is an excellent way of marking the centenary of the first world war.

I am sure that 4 August will be a day of moving, fitting and appropriate commemorations right across the United Kingdom, but in many ways it will be the start of a process. We will see more and more such commemorations on the important anniversaries that fall throughout the four and a half years up to the centenary of Armistice day in 2018. It is a programme that we should all celebrate and be proud of.

15:47

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

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, and I join colleagues who have welcomed the tone in which it was introduced by the Minister and my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I also compliment right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to a powerful debate this afternoon. It has also been a pleasure to participate in a debate in which the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) gave his maiden speech, and I look forward to hearing many more such articulate contributions from him in the months to come.

Last Saturday, I visited Imperial War Museum North, which is located in my constituency, and saw its exhibition “From Street to Trench”. The IWM North is at the heart of the world war one anniversary commemorations, with a programme of outreach and collaboration, which has enabled others across the region and beyond to mark and appreciate the significance of the anniversary. Some beautiful, moving and innovative projects are being sponsored under the auspices of the museum. There has been a creative response to the anniversary through Reactions 14, involving the English National Ballet, the BBC, local, national and international artists such as Bill Fontana, Mark Anstee and Jennifer Vickers, the Royal Northern College of Music, the BBC Philharmonic, the Lowry theatre, other museums across Greater Manchester, local councils across Greater Manchester and local libraries and archives. We are looking forward to “Honour” at the beginning of August, to the Asian art triennial in September and, of course, to “Lights Out” on 4 August.

It is important to note that the Imperial War Museum North is also at the heart of an important programme of educational outreach and engagement with young people. We have learning boxes, filled with world war one replica items for use in schools, particularly where children cannot come to visit the museum, and we have “Finding our first world war”. Of course, we hope that as many of our young people as possible from across the region and beyond will visit the museum, as I did last week.

“From Street to Trench” is a remarkable exhibition showing how world war one affected families from all walks of life across our region, and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members who are in the north to visit it. It includes footage of soldiers serving on the different battlefields and of workers in munitions factories as well as those dealing with foodstuffs, cotton and other textiles. As has been noted by other hon. Members, many of those factory workers were women, who filled the vacancies left by men serving at the front. It is possible to listen to recordings of the voices of veterans recounting their experiences first hand and to look at photographs, medals, uniforms and equipment. One can read letters, which other hon. Members have mentioned, including those from service personnel writing home to their families, which are very touching. There is a letter from Clement Attlee to his great-nephew, which I was particularly pleased to take a look at.

There are also, of course, poems—poems written from the heart by ordinary service people and their families, but also early versions of poems by some of our greatest war poets, including one of Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est”, a poem that I first read, as I am sure many colleagues did, at school and which some 40 years later still has the power to move and, I have to say, chill me with its words.

If I may say so, and I hope that I will not offend anyone in this House or outside it when I say this, what struck me most in the exhibition was how little happiness there was in the images that I saw. Faces were exhausted, demoralised and bleak. I do not say that for one moment to denigrate the courage, the comradeship and the pride that people clearly took in the work that they were doing in the factories and the fields, but what came across to me is that war is hell, and not just on the front line.

The day before I went to the exhibition, I was at Stretford high school in my constituency, and I was asked by one 15-year-old student why the UK is involved in so many wars. We discussed the significance of our imperial history and our notions of international justice and obligation to our neighbours in other countries. We talked about notions of power and economic self-interest and our international alliances and friendships and, in particular, how that had led to the domino effect of country after country collapsing into conflict that characterised the start of world war one. It was clear in the discussions with the young people in that class that they did not want that to happen in their generation. They see fighting as failure, and of course it is their lives—the lives of our young people—that are the first to be sacrificed. I wonder, as we consider the international challenges and tests that face us today, and the conflicts around us and the way in which we decide that we will or will not be drawn into them, whether we do enough to hear the voices and views of young people—the generation that we would, after all, send to fight.

I am very proud of our record in the north-west in the first world war and in other wars. Our region continues to contribute to this day; for example, through the volunteer 207 field hospital located in Old Trafford in my constituency, whose volunteers—reservists all of them—have recently returned from Afghanistan. I am also proud of our industrial contribution. Trafford Park was and remains the largest industrial estate in Europe, and much of the production and industry that went to support world war one and other wars took place there. That of course made it a magnet for enemy attack, including air attack, during those wars.

I am proud of our record of dissent in the north-west. “From Street to Trench” carries some testimony from conscientious objectors, some who contributed in other ways to the war effort, some who refused altogether and were imprisoned for their beliefs. It has testimony from religious dissenters and from political dissenters and, of course, as has been mentioned, it acknowledges the debate that began the first world war, continued through it and was, to a degree, starting to be concluded after it on the role of women and women’s suffrage. Perhaps this is the moment to put on record how pleased I am that Parliament is to commemorate women’s suffrage and the arrival of women here in this House through the work of Parliament’s artist in residence, Mary Branson. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other colleagues look forward to being closely involved in that work.

The final point I want to put on the record is that dissenting, resisting war, not being prepared necessarily to adopt the prevailing wisdom, takes great courage and bravery and is a form of contribution, too. Negotiating first and last, putting our efforts into diplomacy and building relationships, internationally through our membership of the European Union and other European bodies, and here at home in our diverse multicultural communities, where we must reach out to each community and hear their views—that is where I want us to use this anniversary period to concentrate our energies, because for me it is a tragedy that 100 years after the war that was described as the war to end all wars, we still cannot say with confidence, “Never again.”

15:57

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a huge honour to speak in this important debate. Many Members have said that, and I think that when we reflect on the way the debate was introduced by both Front-Bench teams, we have to salute that fact. I commend the Front Benchers for what they have done.

As Members walk into this House, they are witness to a memorial to the first world war—the great war—as they walk past plaques in memory of the many gallant Members who have laid down their lives. Two are particularly significant: one for Captain O’Neill and one for Major Willie Redmond—two Irishmen, one an Irish Unionist and one an Irish nationalist, both of whom fought for king and country and both of whom made the ultimate sacrifice for king and country. They were able to set aside their other divisions and associations and to unite behind a greater cause: to fight for liberty and freedom for all their people. Those two plaques on either side stand as pillars in this House. We pass them each day, probably rarely paying attention to them, but today we have the opportunity to reflect on how those pillars unite two very different ideologies and viewpoints on what should happen on my island. That is significant; it is poignant; and it is important.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said this was the war that was supposed to end all wars and to change all wars. Of course, it also united our peoples in a solemn way. It united us in bravery and in grief, and we should reflect on that. I, of course, as an Ulster Unionist, am proud of the people of my country and want to reflect on the sacrifice that I believe was beyond the call of duty made by many an Ulsterman and Ulsterwoman.

The number of Victoria Crosses won by Irishmen in the first world war has already been commented on in the House today. One of those men was from my own constituency, from the village of Bushmills. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, these were not professional soldiers, but ordinary men and women. Private Quigg was a gamekeeper on the Macnaghten estate in Bushmills and it is appropriate that his gallantry is put on the record of the House. He was awarded the Victoria Cross for “most conspicuous bravery” at the battle of the Somme on 1 July 1916.

Prior to a major offensive, Quigg’s unit had been placed in the French village of Hamel. On 1 July the Mid-Antrim Volunteers were ordered to advance through the defences towards the heavily defended German lines. During the advance, they encountered fierce resistance from heavy machinegun and shell fire. Quiggs’s platoon made three advances during that day, only to be beaten back on each occasion by German fire. The final evening assault left many hundreds of the 12th Battalion lying dead and wounded in no man’s land.

In the early hours of the next morning it was reported that Lieutenant Harry Macnaghten, also from Bushmills, the platoon commander, was missing. Robert Quigg immediately volunteered to go out into no man’s land to try to locate him. He went out seven times to search for the missing officer, each time without success. On each occasion, he came under heavy machinegun fire, but he managed to return with a wounded colleague on every occasion. It was reported that on one of his forays he crawled within yards of a German position to rescue a wounded soldier, whom he dragged back on a waterproof groundsheet. After seven hours of trying and wrestling through that mudbath and bloodbath to try to find his platoon commander, he gave up in exhaustion. Robert’s efforts to find the body of Lieutenant Harry Macnaghten were in vain, as his body was never recovered.

On 8 January 1917, Quigg received the Victoria Cross from King George V at York cottage, Sandringham. Queen Mary was also present. Later the Russians recognised his bravery and presented him with the medal of the Order of St George, fourth-class division. This is the highest award the Russian empire could give to any individual who was not a Russian citizen. That says something about the remarkable efforts that that Ulsterman made.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) earlier read on to the record Captain W. B. Spender’s comment that he was not an Ulsterman, but that the previous day, 1 July 1916, he wished he had been. Captain Spender went on to say:

“The Ulster Volunteer Force, from which the Division was made, has won a name which equals any in history. Their devotion deserves the gratitude of the British Empire.”

King George V said:

“I recall the deeds of the 36th (Ulster) Division, which have more than fulfilled the high opinion formed by me on inspecting that force on the eve of its departure for the front. Throughout the long years of struggle, which have now so gloriously ended, the men of Ulster have proved how nobly they fight and die.”

Winston Churchill wrote of the 36th Ulster Division and his pride in them. He said that

“they acquired a reputation for conduct and devotion deathless in military history of the United Kingdom, and repeatedly signalised in the despatches of the Commander-in-Chief.”

That says something of the devotion of Ulsterman in the battles of the first world war, and of Irishmen who volunteered to fight for king and country. The level of sacrifice reminds us that we as a nation must now resource that memory and encourage our schools, colleges and education boards to grasp that memory and ensure that it is not lost in time. That would be a great travesty.

I believe that we have a duty to remember our glorious dead. Some 140,000 Irishmen volunteered to fight in the great war. According to the records, 50,000 men from Irish divisions were casualties. Indeed, 5,500 from the 36th Ulster Division were killed or wounded in one day on the Somme, between 1 and 2 July 1916. In September, another 4,500 were recorded as wounded or missing from the 16th Irish Division at Guillemont. The 16th Irish Division suffered more than 28,000 casualties during the war. The fact that they came from so small a nation amplifies their sacrifice all the more.

As other Members have mentioned, the sacrifice was not only from these islands; a major sacrifice was made by the Dominions and other nations. The British empire in 1914 covered 9 million square miles and represented 348 million people. Canada sent 458,000 men to the war; Australia sent 332,000; New Zealand sent 112,000; South Africa sent 136,000—the list goes on. The sacrifice of each of those nations was immense, but also terrible and troubling, given what they had to do.

As we remember our glorious dead and the glorious memory that they have rightly earned and paid for in their blood across Flanders fields, and as we tell the story and try to commit these things to memory, we must also look forward and recognise that some good has to come from all that. Her Majesty the Queen, on her gracious visit to the Republic of Ireland, visited the memorial to the Irish soldiers who fought in the first world war. That act was not only very important and significant, but a recognition of the fact that Irishmen now want to remember that they made a major contribution to the battles that were fought, and that is very significant. Indeed, it is encouraging, because although there are things that divide us, there are things that have united us that are far, far stronger.

16:07

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

I congratulate both Front Benchers on setting an exemplary tone for the debate and all hon. Members on both sides of the House on contributing so well. In particular, I congratulate the newest Member, the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), on making his maiden speech. If I may give him some advice, it is to listen to everybody in the House and then make up his own mind and do his own thing.

I want to reflect on some of the excellent work that is being done for the commemorations by many of the local families who can trace their history back, as many can, within our communities, and also by the local history societies, which remind us of the personal, local and human face of war and what it means for their communities in this long trail of history that reaches us here today in this Chamber.

Many of the people in the valleys I represent, such as Ogmore, Garw, Llynfi and Gilfach, left their work in the pits, even though they were protected jobs and they could have chosen to stay, to enlist and go overseas into areas that they had no knowledge of. They certainly did not foresee the horror that awaited them. They were people such as Corporal James Llewellyn Davies of Nant-y-moel row, who was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery in Pilkem ridge in 1917.

Another such individual was Horace Rees, one of the first men in the Ogmore valley to answer the call in 1914, or at least to try to, because he tried 14 times and was rejected each time—he has a cleft palate and a speech impediment that made him unfit to enlist. He succeeded on the 15th attempt, although there are rumours that he first had to bribe the recruitment sergeant. Horace Rees was indeed a persistent man, but his gallantry and fighting spirit were also exemplary. He was recommended for the Victoria Cross for his bravery at the battle of Festubert in May 1915. The recommendation fell on deaf ears, but it was recognised in the very next battle, as he was awarded the Military Medal on 25 September 1915 at the battle of Loos for rescuing the wounded under fire.

Another such individual was Chief Petty Officer George Prowse. He was born in Brynsion terrace in Gilfach Goch and worked as a collier in Swansea before enlisting. He was the only survivor of a small group of men who successfully captured an enemy strongpoint, including 23 prisoners and five machine guns, at Pronville in France on 2 September 1918. Very shortly afterwards, on 27 September he was killed in action at Anneux in France.

Then there is Hiram Davies DCM, a Welsh-speaking miner from Maesteg who enlisted in the 10th Welsh Regiment on 11 November 1914 with his brother Illtyd, who was killed in action in May 1917, and other fellow miners from Garth colliery. It was quite typical that pals from collieries would enlist and go together. He fought in Mametz Wood, Passchendaele, and was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for single-handedly taking out three machine gun posts during the battle for Delville Wood in August 1918, saving countless numbers of lives.

Men from all across the valleys went and fought, displaying great bravery in the face of unimaginable horror and carnage. Their families and communities are right to be immensely proud of them.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, he will understand if I do not give way on this occasion, because other people are waiting to speak.

It was not all to do with the stories on the front; it was also about what was happening back home. It is interesting that the local papers such as the Glamorgan Gazette would occasionally print letters from front-line troops. On 11 February 1916, the Glamorgan Gazette published a Blaengarw soldier’s lament in which he says:

“Sir,

May I, through the columns of your newspaper put forward a complaint? I am a native of Blaengarw, at present on active service in France, doing a little bit for the old country.”

He went on to complain about the use of the Prince of Wales fund and the committee that was stopping his wife’s allowance so that she could not now pay the rent. He concludes:

“Maybe if a few of the committee-men were out here doing their bit, and their wives and families were pinched a bit at home, they would take a different view of things.”

Signed Tommy Atkins.”

We have no way of tracing the writer or his family. We cannot know whether they survived the war or, indeed, the peace that came afterwards.

Then there are the Garw officers who wrote back home. Thanks to the local Garw history society, we have this undated letter, which says:

“Christmas Eve, and we are in the trenches again. We came in last night, and we will be here for some time. It is fearfully wet here. Last night I got simply soaked through from head to foot; it was awful, and the rats were mighty. I am about 100 yds behind the front trenches, and the noise is fearful. Our battalion may be out on Monday, then 4 days rest billets, about 5 miles behind the lines, then in again for 8 days, I think. I nearly got hit as we went out of the trenches on Wednesday night. I was with the Commanding Officer and another, a Colonel. Going out we had to duck and jump into a dug-out, as there was a sniper on. We lost a Captain on our first day, killed by shrapnel. I hope you have a happy Christmas. I wish I was with you, but this is my place, and I hope we shall be alright.”

Private Francis George Ricketts wrote back to his parents, saying in the middle of his letter:

“During our eight days of rest we were billeted in barns, and slept on straw, but although it was wanting in home comforts, we were glad to be in such, and we were happy and contented. It was in these billets that we spent our Christmas ‘holidays’. Although we were within the sound of the guns, we all went to church services on Christmas morning, and all of us joined in singing the old well known carol ‘Peace on Earth.’ And how beautiful were the strains of ‘Aberystwyth’ and ‘Mae hen wlad fy nhadau,’ as over a thousand Welsh throats sang them in our own native tongue. Although we were far away from the ‘Land of Song’ our hearts were there amongst our old folks at home.”

Then there is the story of Francis Banks and his brother Jack, who both joined up. Jack ended up being captured very early on and spent most of the time as a prisoner of war, but Francey fought in France and Belgium with the Royal Irish Regiment. He was Irish but lived in Maesteg in the Llynfi valley. He was company runner and, in the words of his captain, H. J. O’Reilly,

“consequently my right hand man, whether in action or out of it”.

On 16 August 1917, Francey was bringing a message back to camp and to his captain. When he was just 12 yards away, he was shot by a German sniper. He struggled on and died in the arms of his captain, who says in a letter he sent home:

“A more gallant or finer soldier never drew breath but there is this great consolation back to you and me, that no soldier could have wished to die a better or a more glorious death.”

I thank again all those families and historical societies that have pulled together this material in order to show today’s children exactly what this means and how poignant it is. Private Morgan Llewellyn of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who had been reported missing believed killed in Serbia in 1915, wrote home from Salonika in December 1916:

“When I was in Serbia last winter, I met many Garw, Ogmore and Maesteg boys, and I won’t forget that retreat in a hurry”.

He went on:

“There are a good few Maesteg boys in this Division and also a few from Tondu. A batch of Maesteg and Garw boys have just arrived, and the first word I got the other day from a Pontycymmer lad was ‘Hello, good old Mog; You’re still alive! They mourned you as dead once in Pontycymmer.’ When I get hold of a Gazette out here, it always means a few hours of interesting reading for me. It is sent out to me here regularly by a friend in Pontycymmer. I was more than pleased to read the news of Pte W.J. Ridgeway, R.A.M.C., winning the M.M. in France. I was greatly interested too in his letter in the Gazette, and I hope he and I and all the Garw lads will be spared to land once again in dear old Blighty.”

The stories reach out to us down the years and remind us of the human faces of war and how we should strive at all costs to avoid it wherever possible. They are also a poignant lesson not only for politicians, but for today’s children and our communities, which gave and lost so much in the great war—the war that was supposed to end all wars.

16:16

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

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate, to which there have been many stunning contributions, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who made an excellent maiden speech of which he will be rightly proud. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) also made a very moving and excellent speech on war graves. There are two Commonwealth war graves just 100 yards from my house, and they are a constant reminder to us of military action.

I have already been to one commemoration event in Laxfield, which is in my neighbouring constituency, but the parishes of Cratfield, Ubbeston, Huntingfield and Heveningham were also involved. I was moved by a churchyard that is not in my constituency, but in Shotley in South Suffolk. HMS Ganges is where a lot of orphan boys went to train to be midshipmen and they have very special graves—distinctive crosses with black plaques—in that churchyard. If Members go to Suffolk, I would recommend that they visit that very peaceful churchyard. Perhaps unusually, a zeppelin was shot down in Theberton in 1917. Most of the crew were killed and they are buried in Theberton churchyard. As has been said, people died on both sides.

We have heard from many Members representing constituencies across the United Kingdom, which reflects the fact that nearly every village was affected in a devastating way. I think that the number of thankful villages to which everyone came back was only 53. I am sure we all notice during our Remembrance day services that many more names are read out from world war one and, in particular, that the same surnames are often repeated, so there was a devastating effect on the families left behind.

There are going to be several commemoration events across my constituency and I will refer to some of the towns involved later. I congratulate Melton on its extensive work on involving people of all ages in its commemorations. I also pay tribute to the Royal British Legion, which is leading much of the activity, as well as the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has provided a lot of money towards it.

The Suffolk Regiment raised 14 battalions, was awarded two unit Victoria Crosses and lost many men in Belgium and France. The very first casualty on our own shores happened just off the coast of Felixstowe on 6 August 1914, when HMS Amphion, returning to the port of Harwich, hit mines and 150 men died. Six weeks later three more ships were sunk by a U boat off the coast of Suffolk. It was then that the Royal Naval Air Service seaplane base, which had been established the previous year in Felixstowe, started its main role of patrolling the sea for U boats. By the end of the war, RNAS Felixstowe had become one of the largest bases in the world.

I was pleased to open an exhibition in Felixstowe museum, and I pay tribute to Pam Cole, Sue Tod and their team for putting together a fascinating, compelling and moving exhibition that I hope many children and adults in Felixstowe will visit. It is not the only museum along the coast, but I certainly learned a lot there. It is based around Landguard fort, which had seen action in other wars. I had never realised that this happened in this country, but Felixstowe was declared a martial town, meaning that people had to have papers to go in and out of it. I am learning new things all the time about my constituency in Suffolk.

Slightly further along the coast is the very interesting site of Orford Ness, where experimental things happened. It was, and still is, rather remote. I am visiting it tomorrow, thanks to the National Trust. Aeroplanes had been invented only a few years earlier, but it was tasked with creating bombs and depth charges, and with how to mount machine guns on to planes. Essentially, it was a key part of trying to turn around some of the initial issues that arose in the war. Indeed, many of the scientists who were there during world war one went on to help with the effort during world war two. One of the more peculiar things they did was with parachutes—world war one pilots were not allowed to have them, because they were considered too dangerous—about which they did a lot of research. Basically, pigeons were put in wicker crates and then dropped with parachutes over the continent. Some interesting things happened there, as well as some very sad ones.

Many aeroplanes and other pieces of machinery were built in the Garrett lorry shop further along the coast at Leiston. Women worked in such factories. Indeed, they played a big role in Suffolk not only in such work, but in hospitals and convalescent homes. It was often said that someone injured in Flanders on a Monday would be being cared for by Suffolk women by the Thursday.

I have already referred to the special village of Theberton, where the Zeppelin was shot down in 1917. Lieutenant Colonel Charles Doughty-Wylie—better known as Dick Doughty-Wylie—of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, was awarded the VC. He had served as the military British attaché in Turkey, so when the world war started he was attached to a unit in Gallipoli. After the commanders had been killed, he gathered some men and led a successful attack in parts of Gallipoli, but he was shot dead. He was buried where he fell, which means that he is the only British, or indeed Commonwealth, soldier to be buried on the Gallipoli peninsula. We will commemorate Lieutenant Colonel Doughty-Wylie next year with one of the very special paving slabs that have been issued to villages around the country.

To finish very briefly, I could not let this debate go by— Actually, I will skip that bit of my speech, or else I will break down in tears, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bravery untold, never forgotten.

16:19

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

It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I will come on to mention my family’s connections with Suffolk, which are very much related to the history of world war one.

Like many other hon. Members, I have read many excellent pieces of literature about the world war one period. One book that touched me as a young person was “The Wars” by Timothy Findley, an excellent Canadian author. It recounts tales of those from the Commonwealth and the dominions who lived through those tragic and terrible times. This passage has always stayed with me:

“Someone once said to Clive: do you think we will ever be forgiven for what we’ve done? They meant their generation and the war and what the war had done to civilization. Clive said something I’ve never forgotten. He said: I doubt we’ll ever be forgiven. All I hope is—they’ll remember we were human beings.”

That very much reminds us of the individual human lives, from our or our constituents’ families, that were irrevocably changed by the war and its consequences, as well as by service in the armed forces in general.

I have looked into my family history, as other hon. Members have done. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady because my great-grandfather Ernest Hubbard lived in the village of Euston in Suffolk. His family, and many of my relatives, were in service to the Duke and Duchess of Grafton at Euston hall. They were farm labourers, servants, cooks and cleaners there. Uniquely, as servants, they were remembered on the family’s roll of honour in the church on the estate at Euston hall. My great-grandfather, his cousins and brothers, others who fell and those who returned are all memorialised there. I was privileged to go and see that myself a number of years ago.

On the other side of the family, my great-grandfather Peter Marsh served with the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. I never knew Peter but my mum remembers meeting him as a child. He was still suffering the effects, many years later, of being gassed in the trenches. The King’s Own Scottish Borderers was an old and historic regiment formed in 1689 in Edinburgh following the Glorious Revolution. Numerous battalions were raised at the start of the war and a number of new battalions were created. The KOSB served and fought at Gallipoli, the Somme, Ypres, Vimy ridge, the battle of Gaza and many others. The 6th battalion in particular suffered heavy casualties at the battle of Loos in September 1915 and later fought at the Somme. The 7th lost two thirds of its men and the 8th battalion lost over a third. That shows the scale of the losses.

It was particularly emotional for me to discover in the national archives one medal records card that matches my great-grandfather, Peter Marsh. It has the medals he was awarded throughout the first world war, but at the end there is a line though the card, and the phrase, “Forfeited by desertion in 1919.” He survived and was not one of those who were tragically shot at dawn. We do not know the full story in the family. We know that he was terribly scarred by his experience, both physically and mentally, for the rest of his life. We do not know if he was traumatised, if he was sent somewhere else and wanted to be demobilised and was not, or whether he simply could not cope any more. His story is similar to those of many who returned and saw their lives irrevocably changed.

These were two stories from my family but, like many Members, I have been looking into those of my constituents. I am pleased to say that St Augustine’s church in Penarth—one of the most historic churches in the area—has undertaken a project to restore its roll of honour from the first world war. It is a fantastic piece of art and remembrance in the church. The project has been generously funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and the War Memorial Trust, and there has been a significant amount of local fundraising to remember all those from Penarth and the district who fell.

The roll of honour was designed by John Batten and carved by Joseph Armitage, who, interestingly, also designed the oak leaf symbol of the National Trust. Unfortunately, the memorial has degraded over the years. Some of the names have been lost but fantastically, thanks to this project, the roll is being restored. An online archive has also been created to detail the lives of many of those who appear on the roll, and of their families. I very much look forward to attending the re-dedication of that shortly.

Many members have spoken about the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I had the privilege of meeting Andy Knowlson from the commission last Friday. He took me on a fascinating and emotional tour round a number of war graves that I had absolutely no idea were in Penarth cemetery and St Augustine’s church. I am also hoping to go to see some of those in the Cardiff area. As we have heard, the CWGC looks after many thousands of graves in 153 countries. I was staggered by the scale of its work, and the absolute dedication and care with which it memorialises the heavy price paid by many constituents, including Gunner Bendon of the Royal Field Artillery, whose grave I saw; he died in 1917 at the age of just 32, which is younger than I am.

Thinking a lot about first world war memorials has made me think carefully about how we memorialise those from all the conflicts of the past 100 years, whether we are talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, the Falklands or any of the other conflicts that British service people have been involved in.

I recently met a constituent, Sian Woodland, and the mother of Paul Woodland. Sian and Paul were due to be married, but sadly Paul, a Royal Marine, was killed during operational training with the Special Boat Service in October 2012. Sian has done amazing work since raising money for charity, and to memorialise her fiancé. She has rightly raised the question of how we should memorialise all those who have died on active service and training since world war one. We should all think carefully in this year of remembrance about how properly to memorialise people, not only at fantastic facilities such as the National Memorial Arboretum, but in our communities up and down the country.

16:30

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I join him in praising those who tend the Commonwealth war graves. It is a pleasure, too, to follow the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and I join her in praising the Royal British Legion and all it does in supporting our armed services and the important role they will play in the commemorations.

I greatly welcome this debate on the commemoration, as well as the commemoration itself. I want to take this opportunity to place on record my profound respect for all those from Oxfordshire and beyond who served and suffered, along with their families, during the first world war. As is evident from so many of the contributions we have heard, the scale of people’s courage and sacrifice was matched only by the horrors that they were forced to endure. In a real sense, whatever we are able to say here in such debates cannot do justice to what people who went through the first world war endured. It is almost beyond our imagination. The most fitting thing to come out of the commemoration, and the epitaph to the centenary, must be a firm resolve on the part of us all to do everything we can to prevent such carnage from happening again.

16:31

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will be as quick as I can, and I would like to apologise for not being here for the entire debate; I was at Buckingham palace for the 95th anniversary of the Not Forgotten Association. I am glad to be back.

I want to say very quickly how very frightened those boys on the front lines must have been. None of us can understand how ghastly it must have been. I felt a little of that when in March 1993, my staff sergeant beside me was shot in the head by a sniper. That was on the front lines in Bosnia. I was determined to go, and I went. What was so awful was my tummy and my fear—the jitters. Overcoming that and trying to go forward was difficult; my feet felt like lead. That was just one little instance, so let us try to think what it must have been like for those men from Ulster and those other brave men on 1 July 1916 when they had to climb those ladders and go over the top in that dreadful row—with all that fear and all that kit and all that thinking of their mothers. Soldiers always think of their mothers. I think we would all totally understand that we can have no idea how bad it was for those boys who fought in the first world war; we just have a little glimmer from what they left behind and what they said. God bless the lot of them.

16:33

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

Let me first say how appropriate it is to have this debate today as we look forward to Armed Forces day this weekend. I congratulate the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on their opening remarks, and I pay tribute to the work in this area of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) as the shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport.

I congratulate the Minister not just on his speech today, but on the work he has done over the past few years. I remember meeting him shortly after he was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative for commemorating the first world war. I give credit to the Minister, because what he envisaged should happen over the four years leading up to the commemoration and what I discussed with him then has actually worked. I refer to the idea that this should not be a celebration driven centrally by the Government; it should be about local communities coming together at a local level to remember not just those who fought and fell in action, but all those who made a contribution in the widest possible sense. I think that he should be congratulated on that vision.

In April, I had the honour of visiting Gallipoli with the Minister. As has already been pointed out today, it is important to recognise that this is not just about the United Kingdom; it is also about the Commonwealth countries that made a contribution during the war—India, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Canada—and the other European nations that took part.

I have the privilege to serve as one of the 15 Commonwealth War Graves Commissioners, along with the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). I might refer to the hon. Gentleman as “my hon. Friend”, because I consider him to be a very good friend. I pay tribute not only to the work of the commission and its staff, but to their tremendous dedication. Last year, a gardener in France asked me, “When you think about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, what is the main thing that you think about?” I said, as I always say, that it was the dedication and hard work of the individual members of staff who maintain cemeteries and organise commemorations around the world—in 150 countries, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

One of the projects in which the commission has been involved as part of the commemorations is intended to raise awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and I have been trying to ensure that people are aware of Commonwealth war graves that are in churchyards in their own communities. If Members have not taken the opportunity to visit those graves with the commission’s staff, I urge them to do so. They will find the experience very educational, and I think it important for them to try to involve their local communities in that way.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I would, but I am very short of time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on a fantastic maiden speech. Not only did he deliver it with force and passion, but he rightly praised the beauty of his constituency. Having been born in Nottinghamshire, I know the constituency very well. I went there once during the by-election campaign, but I have fonder memories of fishing on the River Trent—with, I have to say, not a great deal of success. I was also pleased to hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is so highly thought of in the area, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will find out very soon that the same sentiment is not shared among members of the parliamentary Conservative party. I wish him all the best for his parliamentary career, and congratulate him again on his speech.

We have heard 24 very good speeches today, which have demonstrated not only the breadth of knowledge about this subject in the House, but the way in which Members of Parliament are engaging with their constituents, with volunteers and with others to ensure that the story of the first world war and the involvement of their local communities is recognised. The hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to Members of Parliament who had fought and died in the war. I think it important to recognise not only those who died but those who fought, because they influenced the debate that took place a generation later in the House. It is clear from the memoirs of Macmillan and Attlee, who fought in the first world war, that their experience brought a certain understanding of the gravity of the decisions that were made a generation later as we entered the second world war.

Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), related personal stories about members of their families who had fought and, in some cases, died in the first world war. I expect that we shall hear more such stories from all over the country over the next four years, as Members engage in family research to find out what their forebears did.

Another important point is that in some contributions and commentary, there is an emphasis that it was all about the western front, but what has been good this afternoon is that a number of Members have recognised that the commemoration has to recognise the idea that it was a world war, with fighting across the globe. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) mentioned the dedication shown by nurses in parts of Serbia, and he raised an issue that we sometimes forget: people not only died of their wounds; a number died of typhus and Spanish flu after the war.

The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said that this war was not only on the western front, mentioning the fighting that took place in Mesopotamia. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, and it is important, certainly when looking at issues from the first world war and how they impact on our lives today. We can look back and see that the boundaries that were drawn up after the first world war have had and still are having a direct impact in the tragic events in the middle east today.

Many Members have said thanks to the Heritage Lottery Fund, and can I put on record everyone’s thanks for the contribution it is making, in terms of allowing local communities to remember the first world war? From speaking to the Heritage Lottery Fund and from visiting various constituencies, I have been struck by the variety of projects that it is backing: for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth mentioned the excellent Tynemouth world war one project. Also, school groups are putting on plays and villages are holding events about their village at war. In a few weeks’ time, in Sacriston in my constituency, I will be attending a village at war presentation done by the local heritage group. That shows the variety of ways in which we can remember the first world war.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland raised the issue of controversy around the first world war, and clearly that continues. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) also raised that issue, and I think he was wrong when he said that this is about the glorification of war. The Minister and the Government have made clear that this is not about celebration or jingoism; it is about remembering what happened during the first world war and how it impacted not only on Parliament and the international situation, but on daily lives. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Heritage Lottery Fund, he will see that it is funding projects including those remembering conscientious objectors, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). The role of conscientious objectors, whether for religious or political reasons, is important to the lessons of and the stories told about the first world war.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), spoke about Belgians. Again, it has been forgotten that during the war, this country opened its arms to large numbers of Belgian refugees, who settled here, fleeing violence in their own country. In the north-east, they made a huge contribution at the Royal Ordnance factory in Birtley to the war effort. I am pleased to announce that later this year, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission will be re-erecting a number of headstones in Birtley to honour Belgian soldiers who lost their lives during the first world war.

The home front also featured in a lot of today’s contributions, whether it was the changing role of women, or the contributions made by coal miners and factory workers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central mentioned. In the North Durham coalfield, a huge number of miners not only volunteered for active service, but kept the pits going throughout the first world war to provide the coal that was needed.

There are also examples of people in reserve occupations. One of my predecessors, Jack Lawson, who was Member of Parliament for Chester-le-Street from 1919 to 1949, was in a reserved occupation at the time as a county councillor. When his brother Will was killed at the battle of Ypres in 1915, he volunteered at the age of 39 for service on the western front. That did not stop the Liberals in 1918 accusing him, when he fought the next general election, of being a conscientious objector because he had been a member of the Independent Labour party. That shows the contribution that many communities made across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe spoke about the civilian cost, and it was the first war that brought war to the home front, such as in the bombardment of Hartlepool or the Zeppelin raids mentioned by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

Another great change, which was illustrated in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), is the contribution made from Ireland. We heard stories of Captain O’Neill and Willie Redmond, and today this opportunity is being used to ensure that reconciliation comes into being. I saw that first hand last year when I visited Glasnevin cemetery, and I pay tribute to the group there who are ensuring that there is a fitting memorial and a recognition of the contribution made.

With time pressing I will mention just one other area: education. That has been mentioned by many Members, and is something that we must press not just this year but over the next four years. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) is taking his grandson to France, and we must also ensure that children visit local cemeteries to see graves. We must ensure that the sacrifices made during the first world war are not forgotten, and that some of the lessons can be learned.

16:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I thank hon. Members from across the House who have spoken today, and I have listened with great attention to what they have said. Many have spoken with passion, and tears at times, and I will refer to as many contributions as possible in the time allowed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), set out at the beginning of the debate what the Government are doing for the first world war centenary, so I will not rehearse that now. The commemoration will be accessible and relevant to all parts of the country. It will reach out to young people, as custodians of the first world war legacy, and we will be mindful of our present-day friendships, both with our former adversaries and with the Commonwealth.

[Michael Ellis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

I am afraid that I will not because I have so little time.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) spoke about the tone of the commemorations. The first world war continues to be a focus for strongly felt and widely differing responses. Some people see it as a squabble between empires; others as a just war, and all points in between. Let me be clear that it is not the Government’s role to accept or promote one view or another. We are neither celebratory nor apologetic. Although it is clear which side won, the enormous sacrifices on both sides and the horror of war referred to by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) means that there is no cause for celebration. Instead, we wish to commemorate the war appropriately and with humility, though with pride in the courage of our ancestors.

The Government share the view of many hon. Members that the programme should be inclusive. We want people of all backgrounds to have a chance to get involved and not just by ensuring diverse attendance at national events. For example, the immense contribution of troops from all the present-day Commonwealth will be recognised on 4 August and beyond, including the sacrifices of the Indian army’s famous Jullundur Brigade at Neuve Chapelle; the exemplary record of the Anzacs during the Gallipoli campaign; the heroism of the Canadians at Passchendaele; and the considerable contribution of the Caribbean regiments in various theatres.

We are also exploring ways to mark the life of Walter Tull, the first black commissioned officer in the British Army, and to commemorate the tragic sinking of the SS Mendi in 1917, with the loss of 646 men of the South African Native Labour Corps. Among the more than 600 world war one projects made possible by the Heritage Lottery Fund are many with a minority focus, such as “Hackney Remembers”, which will look at the Jewish experience in the war; and a major new exhibition at the School of Oriental and African Studies on the military contribution of Sikhs.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and others have spoken about the important contribution of women. The empowerment of women was one of the most important ways in which the war shaped modern Britain. Not only did they enter the workplace as nurses, farmers and munitions workers, but they kept communities going when the men were away and when many were dealing with personal loss. Their huge contribution helped to bring about votes for women and it is right and proper that we should mark that now.

On international women’s day, my Department awarded the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry a £20,000 grant to aid its present-day mission, and the Heritage Lottery Fund has supported many local projects that tell women’s wartime stories, such as the digitisation of the British Red Cross’s volunteer women’s records and a theatre project in Leeds enabling young people to learn about the evolution of women’s roles during the war. Many projects and events linked to the Imperial War museum’s centenary partnership are wholly or partly about women, such as the exhibition on women in industry in the first world war at Imperial War Museum North in Manchester, to which the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) referred. The Imperial War museum’s new first world war galleries, opening in July, will include a section on the contribution of women. My Department’s arm’s length bodies are delivering various programmes looking at the home front, including the British Library’s new educational website, which explores topics such as class and gender during the war and its aftermath.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also referred to the exhibition at Imperial War Museum North covering conscientious objectors. I have not yet visited it, but I hope to do so. The Heritage Lottery Fund has recently awarded a grant of £95,000 to the Peace Pledge Union to help to explore the history of conscientious objectors during the first world war. It is right that the lottery programme should reflect a broad range of views and experiences of the war, and that is just one such example.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about the importance of how we engage with our young people. One of our key objectives for the centenary is to encourage young people by making connections between young people today and the young people who fought and died a century ago. Our battlefield visits programme will connect young people with battlefields and offer a special experience that they can share with classmates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) spoke poignantly about the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We fully appreciate its wonderful work. Indeed, it is responsible for providing some of the sites for our national events. Recognition of the commission’s work is inherent in all we do. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for his suggestion. I will look at what he said and come back to him on the proposal.

Many Members have spoken about the commemoration activities in their constituencies. I was delighted to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who delivered an excellent maiden speech. I was also delighted to visit his constituency recently, on at least three occasions, so I know what a beautiful constituency he has the honour to represent. Being Sports Minister, I was especially interested to hear about the recreation of a Christmas truce match on 24 August in his constituency, which I am sure will be a great success.

I was also pleased to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) about a range of different activities in their constituencies, from Facebook sites, “Colchester remembers” 1914-18, silent vigils, pipes and drums, world war one museums, events to commemorate the bravery of the Worcesters, the construction of an incredible arch in Folkestone—today, I believe—and the special Step Short project, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has worked very hard on, to the researching of local war memorials in Cowley. These are precisely the types of project that we want to hear about, and I wish them every possible success.

I want to mention that the original Military Wives performed a wonderful medley of first world war songs last night in Portcullis House. I hope many Members were able to be present, because they were incredible. They were guests of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), so well done to him. It was an excellent and very special event.

We have heard many personal recollections today, too, and it was humbling and emotional to listen to the individual stories of the right hon. Members for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), the hon. Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—I hope that I have not missed anyone out. They related to a variety of individuals and groups ranging from the Barnsley and Pompey Pals, “Mrs Barbour’s army”, Edith Cavell, Fred Dancox, Matthew Brown and the Bevin Boys, Driver A. E. Ironside, Major Willie Redmond, Captain Arthur Edward Bruce O’Neill MP, Lieutenant George Ward, the sons of Trimdon who died on the Somme, the bombardment of Hartlepool, Robert Quigg, Horace Rees and his 14 rejections and, last but certainly not least, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Doughty-Wylie. We can feel nothing but respect and awe when we hear about such personal suffering and sacrifice and bravery, and the commemorations will help us to mark such contributions. They will also make future generations aware of the history of the war, so that we can continue to learn from the past.

I again thank all Members who have spoken and made interventions today. Many Members have written to their constituents urging them to get involved in the centenary commemoration, and to great effect. I ask Members to carry on with a steady drumbeat of information about what is being planned over the next four years. Connections to the war can be found in our churchyards and in the names on our memorials and even in those photographs that we keep at home of family members who are no longer with us, but whose stories remain to be discovered again.

The war and its legacy is of such importance that it is right that the Government should be leading the commemoration of its centenary. However, it is relevant to everyone in this country and the ownership of it rests with the public as a whole. I hope that what we have said this afternoon assures the House that what we have planned, and what we continue to plan, will have a life beyond the next four years, so that our generation passes what we have learned to the generations yet to come, so that they may pay their respects to the service and sacrifice of those who did and endured so much 100 years ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the programme of commemoration for the First World War.

Shop Closures (South Shields)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

16:59

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I am very grateful for being given time in the Chamber today for my first Adjournment debate. I chose today’s subject because of the strong attachment my constituents feel to King street. The shopping street that runs through the heart of our town has always been at the centre of public life in Shields. Today, I will be explaining some of the challenges it faces, but in spite of them, King street and South Shields still have a huge amount to offer visitors—not just shops but our beautiful coastline, beaches and parks. We also have great plans for the future, and I am excited about the changes on the way.

King street has always been part of community life in South Shields and has historically been popular with shoppers from across the region. Generations of families, including mine, have pride in and are fond of our high street, with its friendly banter of our local market traders, retailers and locals. We have always had a strong local and tourist presence, but even in my lifetime I have seen changes to our King street. In recent years, a number of businesses have departed, leaving vacant shop fronts behind. In the last three years alone, retailers in and around King street such as HMV, Curry’s and JJB Sports have shut down, as well as local sellers such as Thompsons TV. Thompsons opened as a family business run by three brothers in 1930, selling wirelesses and later all kinds of other electronics. It was a fixture in our town for the best part of a century, before financial pressures forced it to close last year.

In February, Marks & Spencer announced the sad news that it too would be ending its 80-year presence in Shields. M&S had always been one of our most popular stores and attracted large numbers of shoppers to King street. Shoppers and businesses tell me that in the three months since M&S’s closure, there is already a noticeable drop in footfall in the town centre. When I spoke to Marks & Spencer after the announcement, it explained that the store simply did not have the customer base it used to have. There are a number of reasons for that. The global recession has resulted in less spending power in the pockets of my constituents. This, combined with the rise of online shopping, large supermarkets and out-of-town shopping and entertainment complexes, means people spend less money in town centres than they used to. In 2013, it was reported that for every £100 of disposable income, our residents were spending only £3.70 in our town centre.

However, just because people’s shopping habits have changed does not mean that our high streets need to decline. Out-of-town shopping centres are not new, and online shopping has been popular for some years, but it is in the last couple of years that we have seen the rate of closures speed up on King street. I believe that the decline in people’s incomes is one the main factors, and the Government need to take responsibility for that. Of course, high streets need to adapt to changing times as well, and since securing this debate I have been contacted by constituents with creative and innovative suggestions on how to support King street. Our council, too, is looking to regenerate the town centre through its ambitious 365 project, but we need a central Government policy that supports businesses and empowers local communities as well. However, it simply is not happening.

At complete odds with their localism agenda, the Government have taken away the protections offered by the use class system which allowed communities a say in shaping their high streets, and have made it easier for payday lenders, pawnbrokers, fast-food takeaways and betting shops to set up. Research conducted by the Local Government Association found that the clustering of such outlets has discouraged people from visiting their high street. Our King street has a current vacancy rate of approximately 21%, compared with the national average of 12%. When I wrote to the Secretary of State last month to express my concerns about King street, the Minister claimed that the UK’s high streets were starting to “bounce back” and that vacancy rates are falling, but on King street we have seen a new set of closures in the last few months.

King street is not alone in the challenges it faces. Let me briefly recap the government’s record: more than 50,000 shops standing vacant, a disproportionate number of them in the north; business rates having risen by an average of £1,500, with one in 10 small businesses spending more on business rates than rent; and more payday loan shops, betting shops and pawnbrokers on our high streets than there were in 2012. The Government are unclear about what approach to take. Bill Grimsey neatly sums it up, saying:

“We’ve seen reviews, pilots, future high street forums and more. But none of these initiatives are making much impact and there is a frustrating sense of policy being conducted in the margins. The need to grasp the nettle is bigger than ever.”

In his letter, the Minister pointed to the business rate package announced in last year’s autumn statement as a solution. Although this support is welcome, it does not appear to have benefited King street, where the majority of retailers I speak to still say that business rates are their No. 1 concern, and where closures have continued since the changes took effect in April. Mr Blake, owner of Premier Furnishings & Carpets, said his business rates are so high that they are actually double his rent and most weeks he goes without a wage. Another retailer told me that she no longer expects to make a profit; breaking even is a good week for her business. Another told me she cannot afford staff, so needs to work longer hours, yet her profits continue to fall.

The Forum of Private Business, towards the end of last year, found that action on business rates is the No.1 demand from small businesses, and judging by the discussions I have had with retailers, that is still the case on King street. Labour Members are listening to businesses, and we know we need to go further to support them. We have committed to reversing the hike due to take effect in April 2015 and then freezing rates for 2016. That will help some 1.5 million businesses, including shops, save up to nearly £450 over two years.

It is not just business rates that are crippling our local retailers, but the decline in footfall. As I mentioned, Marks & Spencer left our high street after 80 years in South Shields, explaining that it had seen a downward trend in custom in recent years but that the drop had been most noticeable over the past two or three. Sadly, the loss of M&S has meant that there is less activity on King street, and since its announcement other stores, including Mothercare and Thorntons, have shut down. Retailers and constituents have consistently expressed concern to me regarding footfall, and they agree that the decline began some three to four years ago. One local store manager estimated the store had seen a 20% decline in customers in the past year alone. Mr Hedley, a local cobbler, told me that he feels that in the past year things have been worse than they have ever been for small businesses. It is no coincidence that as people’s incomes are falling, shopping on our high streets is also in decline. Mr Hedley has been in business for 29 years and he wants to know why the Government did not reduce business rates to help businesses such as his during the economic downturn.

The Government’s decision to delay the revaluation of business rates is one factor in all this. The Minister will know that both the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the Portas review noted the difficulties that was creating for the retail sector, particularly in towns where businesses are already struggling. It is disappointing for these retailers that the Government have failed to recognise the urgency of the situation.

The cost of living is also at the heart of the issue, and it is little wonder that when levels of poverty have soared under this Government, people have less money to spend on their local high street. It is quite simple: if people are well paid, they will spend money in their local economy and if they are not, the local economy will suffer. The Opposition understand that, which is why we want to get rid of exploitative zero-hours contracts, tackle failure to pay the minimum wage and introduce a jobs guarantee to get people back into work.

The Minister also wrote in his letter to me that

“it is for councils, businesses and communities to decide what their high streets and town centres will look like in the future”.

There is no shortage of ideas in South Shields. Pop-up shops have been allowed to occupy vacant units, and the council has worked with local businesses to offer a parking refund scheme. Last year, I also hosted an event in South Shields as part of Labour’s small business Saturday, with a Christmas market and special offers from local retailers. That small business Saturday gave our town a small boost and resulted in an estimated £500 million being spent across the UK in small and independent shops.

As I mentioned earlier, our council has embarked on a transformative project, the 365 project, which will see more than £100 million invested in our town centre and bring new visitors to Shields.  The Haven Point leisure centre opened last year and will soon be joined by a new library and a cinema.  Our council does not own any of the shops on King street. I agree with it that the wider town regeneration will act as an incentive to bring businesses back to our high street.

My constituents and I have welcomed these developments and the council’s plans, and we look forward to welcoming new visitors to Shields all year round.  By attracting new visitors, we can also make our town a more attractive place for business, but the regeneration will take time. As I have highlighted in this debate, we need some action from the Government to help our retailers.  Local authorities and communities have no shortage of ideas for improving their town centres, but they need a national Government who will enable them to turn those plans into reality.  That means giving them more say over the kinds of shops that open on their high streets, as my hon. Friends have proposed.

The Minister’s letter to me stated that Government

“cannot and should not look to bail out or prop up ailing high street businesses.”

We are talking about not any one business, but the long-term future of our towns, and protecting the communities in which people live.

The reason why closures in King street stir so much passion in Shields is that the area is personally important to the people who live there—people like me who shop there every week and who have fond memories of being a child and going to the bustling and lively street, as I did with my parents and my Gran.  That is not something that the Government should ignore. They could take away that sense of powerlessness that people feel now by giving them control and a sense of ownership over their area.

My constituents and I are proud of our town and of our council’s plans for the future, and we are not too proud to ask this Government to make the changes needed.  King street, and high streets like it across the country, are endangered by the coalition’s plans.

I hope the Minister will consider a few points in his response.  What assessment has he made of the way falling incomes are affecting our businesses? Does he agree that his Government need to target extra support for businesses in areas where vacancy rates remain high? Will he do more to support councils and communities such as mine by giving them more power to oversee the types of shops that are opening in their community? I hope the Minister will be able to offer some good news to my constituents today.

17:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this debate. It is always good to have a chance to discuss the situation on our high streets and to highlight the great work that is going on all over the country to develop them. Many local councils are committed to the regeneration of their town centres and to longer-term programmes, such as the £100 million plan, South Shields 365, which aims to regenerate the area. The plan includes a new central library and digital media centre; improvements to the market square and the public realm; new integrated transport, retail, leisure and cinema facilities; and a new food store, as well as a new multi-storey car park and other surface-level car parking.

If high streets are to remain at the heart of our communities, they need to be more than simply places to shop. We must be brave enough to admit that they are changing and that they need to change. They need to be vibrant and viable places where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time, both during the day and in the evening. They are no longer just somewhere to shop.

It is good to see the recent signs that the UK’s high streets are starting to recover. Overall, vacancy rates have started to reduce, and reoccupation rates for the high street are much higher—

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

If that is the case, how does the Minister explain the fact that more shops are shutting on my high street, month after month? If there is a sense of recovery, why is it not being felt in towns such as mine in the north?

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Lady will let me continue, I will give her some examples. At 70%, reoccupation rates are higher than they are for shopping centres or retail parks. A recent report from Experian highlighted the systematic change that is under way in our town centres, with traditional occupiers making way for a wider range of services—a mix of leisure, including food, and the night-time economy. Any area has to look at what is right for it and drive change. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to work with her local area to work out what is right for that community and drive it forward. Areas are doing different things; her area has to look at what is right for it.

The hon. Lady mentioned the comment from Bill Grimsey about the plethora of things that the Government have done. She is right. There are town teams; there are Portas pilots; there is the future high streets forum. There is a menu of options for people who want to get involved and take their high street forward. That is a positive thing. It means that towns, villages, market squares and high streets can choose from that menu what is right for them and apply it to their area, rather than being restricted, as the Opposition would have it, to a one-size-fits-all. We do not believe in that. We believe that it is right to be committed to helping communities to adapt, but to be clear that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

Every town is different and has to address the problem at a local level. That is why we believe that the visions, plans and ideas for town centres must come from the areas themselves. I will touch in a minute on the powers that we have provided. Contrary to what the hon. Lady said, we have given a phenomenal amount of powers and opportunities to local areas to design their own future. It is for councils, businesses and communities themselves to decide what their high streets and town centres will look like in the future. The consumer will drive what the high street will be, not a Government body, be it local or central Government.

Just recently, we have worked with the future high streets forum to publish a model to deliver good local leadership, sharing best practice—a key part of delivering successful change. That model was developed by the forum, based on an analysis of the activity in some of our Portas pilot towns. I will say more on the forum in a moment. The Department for Communities and Local Government is funding a support programme for town teams, of which there are 333 across our country. That helps them to develop the vision and tools that they need to tackle the issues in their area.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. It is all well and good giving towns and our high streets opportunities to decide what they want to do, but if retailers and businesses will not come because the business rates are too high, that will not solve the problem.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I am surprised that she has not convinced her council to discount the business rates using powers in the Localism Act 2011, which allows local authorities to discount the business rates by 100% if they want. Many of the small, independent businesses that she referred to are able to benefit from the small business rate relief that this Government have taken forward and doubled for another year. About 300,000 business across the country will benefit from small business rate relief. We have also brought in a new £1 billion package on business rates that gives a discount of a further £1,000 to those with a rateable value of under £50,000. We must remember that the local authority can go even further and give a bit more. I will outline that a bit further in a moment.

The Chancellor announced a comprehensive package of support—the largest business rate package of support—before Christmas. We recognise that high streets are changing, and we are helping to put in place a framework of support to see that change through.

In a Deloitte report not that long ago, the No. 1 issue raised was the importance of parking to the modern high street and town centre. It is not just about business rates. We have consulted on local authority parking enforcement and recently announced a range of reforms that could help the high street. We have to ensure that people can get to the high street and park affordably and easily in order to encourage them back to the high street; we should not use some of the policies of yesteryear that discourage car use.

We are restricting local authority use of CCTV for parking enforcement, introducing a 10-minute grace period and extending the powers of traffic adjudicators. The business rate support package is the biggest package of support in more than 20 years. It includes capping the retail prices index increase this year, and a £1,000 discount for premises with a rateable value of up to £50,000. That includes shops, pubs, cafes and restaurants, and it places a clear, sharp focus on benefiting the high street.

To help small businesses, we have extended the doubling of the small business rate relief for another year and changed the rules to allow those taking on an extra property to keep their relief for an extra year. To help tackle vacant properties, we have introduced a new reoccupation relief, halving business rates for 18 months for businesses taking on long-term empty retail property. Those measures will make a huge difference to the small shops and local traders that are essential to town centres across the country.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Does the Minister realise that freeing town centres from regulation means that payday loan shops and betting shops now proliferate on the high street? Far from allowing communities to make decisions, he has taken decisions away from them.

[Brandon Lewis]

Again, I suggest that the hon. Lady talks to her council about using the powers that it already has. It could use article 4 powers to deal with the issue, should it wish to.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Brandon Lewis]

I shall just make a little more progress.

We must bear it in mind that this package is worth about £1 billion to businesses in England, of which about £500 million will benefit retail in England, making the point that this is about the whole high street, with a mix of leisure, retail, hospitality and services. We are also undertaking a review of business rates administration that will look at longer-term reforms to make the system even more transparent, efficient and responsive to economic circumstances.

The hon. Lady touched on planning. We have lifted planning restrictions to increase the flexibility of use on high streets, making it easier for communities to look to their future with a smaller retail core and encourage people to come back to live in town centres. Over the summer, we will consult on further changes to allow the high street to respond to changing demand, and perhaps to enable restrictions on payday lenders and betting shops in a way that goes beyond the powers that local authorities already have.

Looking wider, the only sustainable way to raise living standards and create employment is to grow our overall economy. This Government are systematically putting in place the measures that businesses want and need to thrive. We took action on corporation tax and national insurance contributions. Corporation tax has been reduced to 21% and will fall again next year, to 20%. We are also easing the tax burden on small shops. Since April this year, every business and charity has been entitled to an allowance against their national insurance contributions. Up to 1.25 million businesses will benefit, with around 450,000 of them taken out of paying employer contributions altogether. Over 90% of the benefit of that allowance goes to small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Retail is one of the major employers of young people, and we are making it cheaper to take them on by abolishing employer contributions for those under 21 who earn up to £813 per week.

There is only so much national Government can do. We can put the framework in place. It is right that we do that, and we will continue to take opportunities where we can to help and support at a national level, but everyone needs to play their part, from local authorities, businesses and communities working together to develop the vision and solutions for their areas, to Government, retail, local government and business leaders working together in the future high streets forum. The forum has been key in bringing together leaders across multiple sectors to drive forward new ideas and policies.

I mentioned the recent report on leadership; the forum has also worked closely with Government and the Association of Town and City Management to develop the great British high street awards for 2014. The competition was launched just last week, and today we have launched the social media portal that goes with it. The competition will recognise and celebrate the strides taken and the hard work done by high streets and their communities.

Many high streets are now thriving because they have changed to serve their changing communities. Different places will change in different ways and at different paces. South Shields has an ambitious project, which I think is exciting and offers real opportunity for the future. Local authorities can look at measures such as improving access to services, making it easier to click and collect on the high street, or offering more fun and variety. The competition we are running will highlight what can be achieved, and what is being achieved, when there is a strong partnership between local authorities, businesses and consumers. We are looking to town teams or local partnership bodies to nominate themselves, backed by their communities and Members of Parliament, so I encourage people to get involved and get behind their local town teams and partnerships.

We will continue to support councils, businesses and communities. I remind the hon. Lady that if business rates are the key issue in South Shields, we have given that authority the power to discount business rates by as much as it wants—even by 100%. High streets are evolving. We have to embrace the future, and everyone has to play their part, not just in regeneration but in identifying and celebrating what works. We will continue to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

17:25

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 26th June 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 26 June 2014

House of Commons Commission

Thursday 26th June 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology Service

[Thomas Docherty]

To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, which contractors have been hired by PICT during the current financial year; and which such contractors have had their contracts terminated due to poor performance.

[Official Report, 24 June 2014, Vol. 583, c. 135W.]

Letter of correction from John Thurso:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on 24 June 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[John Thurso]

So far during the financial year 2014-15 PICT has employed 57 contractors, of whom 14 have been supporting services for Members. Further details cannot be provided without identifying individuals. Many are on short term contracts. None has had a contract terminated early.

The correct answer should have been:

[John Thurso]

So far during the financial year 2014-15 PICT has employed 61 contractors, of whom 15 have been supporting services for Members. Further details cannot be provided without identifying individuals. Many are on short term contracts. None has had a contract terminated early.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

Thursday 26 June 2014

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

Migration Statistics

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Public Administration Select Committee, Migration Statistics, HC 523, and the Government response, HC 1228.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(James Brokenshire.)

13:30

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Walker, for the opportunity to present to the House the Select Committee on Public Administration’s report of the 2013-14 Session on migration statistics. It has proved one of the most controversial that we have produced during this Parliament.

Migration statistics are of supreme importance to public policy and the debate about immigration in this country. National and local government depend on those estimates in planning public services. For reasons of security, we need to know not only how many people are arriving in and leaving the UK, but who they are. Migration statistics help us understand what is happening in British society and the British economy.

Accurate and reliable migration statistics are also important for public trust. How can the public trust politicians’ promises on immigration if we do not have reliable numbers on which to base our policies? One reason why the debate on immigration has become so toxic is that people no longer believe they are being told the truth; they do not even believe that Governments understand what is happening to their own country.

We conducted our inquiry last year and came to a conclusion that everybody in the know about immigration has understood for years, but been loth to say too clearly for fear of the consequences: the immigration statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office are but blunt instruments for measuring, managing and understanding migration to and from the UK, and they are not fit for purpose.

The current sources of migration statistics were established when migration levels were much lower than they are today. Those sources are not adequate for understanding the scale and complexity of modern migration flows, despite attempts in recent years to improve their accuracy and usefulness. Most people are astonished when they learn how the inadequate estimates that we do have are compiled. When a person checks in or out of the country, their passport is scanned, but they are not counted in or out of the country, even if they are a foreign national. The headline immigration, emigration and net migration numbers are annual estimates based on interviews of about 800,000 people stopped at random at ports and airports each year—a tiny fraction of the overall flow of passengers and people in and out of the UK. The method is called the international passenger survey.

The number of non-UK citizens identified from the sample as migrants entering or leaving the UK each year is fewer than 5,000. Most of the numbers that we hear in the immigration debate are based on that tiny sample of people, many of whom might be reticent, to say the least, about giving full and frank answers about where they have come from, who they are, why they are here and where they are going. To be clear, that group includes people entering and emigrating from the UK, so the sample number of immigrants in the survey may be as small as 3,000.

Unsurprisingly, migration estimates based on the international passenger survey are subject to a large margin of error, known to statisticians as the confidence interval: that is, the degree of confidence that it is possible to have about a particular margin of error. As we all know, the Government have stated that they intend to bring net migration—the difference between annual immigration into and emigration out of the UK—down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. That is not a 90% cut; in fact, it amounts to about 50%.

On the ONS calculations for net migration as measured by the unadjusted IPS estimate, the 95% confidence interval is plus or minus 35,000, meaning that we can only be 95% certain that the true figure lies within 35,000 of the estimate either way. In other words, the error range is 70,000.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the error margin he gave is one of random variation in a bell curve distribution? Another potential source of variation could be systematic bias in the survey. For instance, if immigrants are not likely to complete the survey or if they say that they are not planning to stay for a long time when they actually are, that would make the margins vary even more.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the survey relies on full and frank answers from those being interviewed even to include them. If people say that they are just visiting a relative for a week, they are not counted as migrants. To that extent, the 70,000 range for potential error within the 95% confidence interval is of significant size for the estimate.

If annual immigration is 120,000 or 150,000, there is only a 5% or one in 20 chance that the official figures are on target. The figures could say that the Government are missing their net immigration target by tens of thousands when in fact they are meeting it, or they could show that the UK is meeting its target when in fact it is missing it by tens of thousands. We do not have enough confidence to know. It is clearly a completely inadequate measure of net migration, but we must be careful before dismissing it, because it is all we have.

That degree of confidence applies only to the headline numbers. The ONS estimate simply does not provide sufficient detail to judge properly the social and economic consequences of different types and origins of migration, and the effects of immigration policy on, for example, students or people from particular countries. Nor does it provide any useful idea about international migration in and out of local areas. Efforts to achieve a blunt net migration target are therefore bound to have unintended consequences, such as skills shortages and effects on universities.

The shortcomings of relying on the IPS were highlighted when the 2011 census showed that the population of England and Wales was 465,000 higher than expected, given the recorded number of births and deaths and the estimated level of net migration during the decade since the previous census. The ONS identified several possible causes for the difference but considered that the

“largest single cause is most likely to be underestimation of long-term immigration from central and eastern Europe in the middle part of the decade”,

which of course was not picked up by the international passenger survey. The ONS concluded that the underestimation came partly from taking samples of people from the wrong airports. That is, the IPS sample under-represented airports such as Cardiff and ports such as Newcastle, where more immigrants are coming in than was previously understood.

As a result, this April, the ONS published a revised set of net migration estimates for the United Kingdom for the period 2001 to 2011. Total net migration during that period is now estimated to have been 346,000 higher than previously thought; the original estimate of 2.18 million has been revised to 2.53 million, plus or minus 35,000.

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

With current technology, there is no reason not to have accurate figures, never mind estimates. Clearly, the most appropriate way to get them is at ports of entry and departure, but I have gone through Heathrow and Gatwick airports and seen enormous queues of people coming in who are non-EU citizens; it is actually quite bad for EU citizens. My only caution is that if we are to get adequate figures, we must ensure that sufficient personnel are made available, so we do not have 24-hour backlogs of people coming through our airports at entry.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend highlights the complexity of moving purely to a counting in and counting out system. Only two countries in the world base their immigration and emigration estimates entirely on counting. One is Australia, which is a good example. A less encouraging example is North Korea. However, every other country in the world bases its migration flow estimates on samples, measuring and estimating or a population register. Germany, for example, keeps an up-to-date population register—the equivalent of a census kept constantly up to date—to monitor its migration flows.

We are in a no man’s land at the moment. We neither count effectively nor sample effectively, and even though we have the decennial census, which has provided the correction of 346,000, that does not resolve the problem between censuses. The underestimation of net migration was identified only by the census on a 10-yearly basis, so the ONS is unable to revise its annual estimates of immigration and emigration as components of migration during the same period, even though it knows that they must be wrong. As a result, for the years from 2001 to 2011, our best estimate of net migration each year is not equal to our best estimate of immigration minus our best estimate of emigration. We are into an Alice in Wonderland world of numbers in which we know that our official figures for each year are wrong, but they cannot be changed, as we have no other sources to use.

In all probability, the actual population of the country will be even larger than that recorded in the census. Many people in the country do not consider themselves to be “residents” and thus decide not to complete the census form. Many others, who have overstayed or are in the country illegally for other reasons, are most unlikely to complete the form. Immigration will thus have been even higher in the last decade than was estimated by the census.

The PASC concluded that the UK’s immigration statistics are not fit for purpose. There was some pushback from the Home Office in reaction to our report last summer, but I think we have to regard that as a natural reaction of denial about the failure of the system of immigration statistics that has been building up for decades. The UK Statistics Authority agrees with us in that respect, saying in its response to our report:

“The limitations of the International Passenger Survey (IPS) in particular and UK international migration statistics in general, especially for local areas, have long been known and debated. The Statistics Authority believes that action must now be taken to address this.”

As I mentioned, when we look at smaller groupings within the 3,000 immigrants identified, such as immigrants from the EU or from specific countries, the system becomes even less reliable, as the 95% confidence interval becomes larger relative to the size of the sample, eventually becoming larger than the sample itself.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

[Keith Vaz]

I am sorry that I missed the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman’s very important speech. May I say how pleased I was, and the Home Affairs Committee was, to know that his Committee had undertaken such a thorough examination? One of the big problems has been the absence of a resolution of the issues relating to the e-Borders programme, which was promised to be the best and most effective way of counting people in and out. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, years after that programme was introduced and then closed, there is still no resolution of the problem relating to e-Borders?

[Mr Jenkin]

I do share that concern, but if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will deal with that issue later.

I was talking about the 95% confidence interval in respect of smaller samples relating to individual countries. The ONS will publish estimates of immigrants by country only for the top 15 source countries, because for all the other countries the sample is too small to provide a meaningful estimate—in other words, the number of people from Iran or Afghanistan is actually smaller than the 95% confidence interval itself, so the number is meaningless.

We have vague estimates of the numbers coming in from China, India, Poland, the USA, Australia, Spain, Pakistan, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Nigeria, New Zealand, Lithuania and Hong Kong. Those are the countries for which figures are published. For the other 180 or so countries, no figures are published, so we cannot tell from the data how many Russians, Iranians, South Africans or Romanians are coming to this country.

For the same reason, the ONS migration data cannot provide anything meaningful for local authorities that are trying to work out how migration flows affect their area or to plan for population changes. The UK Statistics Authority also stated:

“The IPS sample size is too small to enable the production of reliable international migration estimates at a local authority level, and cannot realistically be made sufficiently large to achieve robust local estimates.”

The census, which is designed to count every member of the population, provides the only reliable data on the number and characteristics of migrants at local level, but we get it only every 10 years, which is why it was so full of surprises.

In evidence to us, Westminster city council said that the current methodology for estimating migration was not robust enough to support accurate local-level estimates, so that

“the measurement of migration from the perspective of an LA user and as reliable information on our residents is failing”.

The leader of Westminster more or less told us that the only way it can find out the nationalities of the people in the borough is to go around and count them itself. That may be a responsibility that it should take on, but—[Interruption.]

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. I say to the official who just approached the Minister: please do not do that again. This is a Chamber.

[Mr Jenkin]

That, perhaps, is one of the shortcomings of Westminster Hall, Mr Walker.

The question is how this situation could be improved. We suggested, and I suggested to the Prime Minister when he came before the Liaison Committee, that we should expand the size of the international passenger survey and therefore increase the size of the migrant sample on which the estimates are based. We were advised that if we spent an extra £15 million on the IPS, that would quadruple its size. That would halve the size of the confidence interval, meaning that there would be a 95% chance that the data were within 17,500 of the estimate, rather than there being a total margin of error, on a 95% confidence interval, of 35,000. That brings the range down, but it is a lot of money for not much improved accuracy and it still helps us only with the headline figures. It does not help us with the quality of the data for smaller groups of migrants or for local areas.

The ONS could see what extra value it could derive from the IPS by, for example, asking respondents for various details, notably passport numbers but also national insurance or NHS numbers, which would allow responses to be linked to administrative data, but that would still not address the fundamental problem of the small sample size.

Alternatively, there could be a survey more specifically targeted at migration. A large-scale face-to-face survey of migrants in the UK has previously been considered, leading to a feasibility report published by the Home Office in January 2011. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give that further consideration. The Government concluded against funding such a migrant survey after it was estimated that it would cost a mere £2 million, based on the survey design envisaged. Unlike the Government, I think that that would be good value for money, and that option was recommended by the Office for National Statistics. I hope very much that the Minister will deal with that in his closing remarks.

A migrant survey could provide valuable information on the characteristics and distribution of migrants. That would increase the reliability of immigration estimates in relation to smaller geographical areas and be of some help to local authorities such as Westminster, which at the moment are reduced to doing surveys of their own.

In the longer term, as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) said, the only sure way to improve migration data is to use the e-Borders information. That comes from the advance passenger information, or API, which airlines and other carriers provide to the authorities whenever there is an incoming aircraft or ship.

“Using e-Borders data in the production of long-term and short-term migration counts would be a ground-breaking improvement that would offer several advantages over the migration estimates produced solely from the International Passenger Survey”.

Those are not my words but those of the ONS.

The ONS and the Home Office should move as quickly as possible towards measuring immigration, emigration and net migration using e-Borders data, so that at least a significant proportion of people can be counted in and out of the country as they enter and leave. The e-Borders scheme has now been replaced with the border systems programme, but it should still be possible to use it to count people in and out of the country. Those administrative data would give information about cross-border movements different from that provided by the IPS, but they would still not be without faults. In many respects, the data would give a deeper understanding of the comings and goings from our country. In their response to our report, the Government said that the data gathered through the border systems programme

“does not hold the information to directly estimate net migration”

and that:

“The Border Systems Programme is not designed to provide direct statistical measurement of migration flows”.

My understanding is that that represents a significant downgrading of the Government’s original ambitions for the programme and a failure to deliver what was originally envisaged. The Government’s original business case for the e-Borders scheme said that it would provide

“the ability, for the first time, to comprehensively count all foreign national passengers in and out of the UK, improving public confidence in the integrity of the border and enabling a more accurate count of migrants for future planning and for informing the population count.”

Of course, not everyone entering or leaving the UK is migrating, but if people are on a visa, it should be possible to measure when they enter and when they leave the country. Passport checks are all about checking whether people have a valid visa and whether they are on a watch list. Currently, although 80% or 90% of visas are scanned on entry or exit, we are told that those data are not used for counting in and counting out visa nationals. Why not?

I think that most of the British travelling public would be astonished to find out that passports are scanned but not even people who are on a visa are recorded as they pass into or out of the country. The Home Office should move as rapidly as possible towards integrating visa information with border systems programme data, so that an accurate measurement can be made of immigration, emigration and net migration by people in different visa categories. That would also provide data on the number of people in different visa categories currently living in the UK, and it would enable the Home Office to gather detailed information on the characteristics of migrants who are subject to migration control.

As things stand, we simply do not know how many visa nationals are currently in the country; we do not know how many comply with the rules and how many overstay; and we do not know how many of the people migrating to and from the UK on a long-term basis entered the country in each visa category. That makes it hard to work out whether changes in visa policy are having the intended effect on migration flows and almost impossible to establish the scale of the problem of people who stay here illegally. There is no reason for the situation to persist now that the Government have committed to reintroducing exit checks, but in their response to the Public Administration Committee the Government made no commitment to track the entries and exits of visa holders once that becomes possible, even though it is fully within their power to do so. They say only that that

“may be feasible in future”.

We believe, however, that it should be done as a matter of urgency.

To be clear, we have not recommended that the Government should stop using the IPS by any means, but the Public Administration Committee recommended that the Government plan to end their reliance on that survey as the sole basis for estimating migration flows. The IPS was not designed for the important job that it now has. It was never intended to be used for the purpose of estimating international migration; it was designed to support the work of the then British Tourist Authority by providing economic data on travel and tourism.

The next five years will see much work in Government on developing new data sources that will eventually replace the decennial population census. It is vital that work on immigration be fully co-ordinated and that Departments share intelligence. That our official immigration and emigration estimates do not match our official net migration figure for a whole decade underlines the Committee’s main finding that the current system of relying solely on the IPS for migration statistics is not fit for purpose. Although the IPS provides useful information about the characteristics of migrants, it cannot be relied on to give us accurate numbers of those migrating into and out of the United Kingdom.

There is no reason why the Government cannot use border systems programme data dramatically to improve the accuracy of migration data. The Home Office told us:

“There will be some possibility to link e-Borders data in the future, in due course”,

but we have not yet received any clear commitment that that will happen, let alone a time scale. That is not adequate. The issue requires urgent action. Estimates based on a survey alone are no longer fit for purpose. Instead, we need to make proper use of the electronic data from the border systems programme. The public need and deserve to be given accurate information about migration to the UK, using the latest technology and methods available.

We are now in an election year, during which the issue of immigration will be hotly contested, but that debate is likely to do no more than produce despair in the minds of our voters. The politicians of the main parties are arguing about policies, the effects of which they cannot measure, in relation to numbers of migrants that they cannot determine. That can only undermine trust and confidence in political life, and it will provide an avenue for extremist parties to exploit at the expense of the proper government of this country. We owe it to our voters to deliver more accurate migration statistics as soon as possible.

13:56

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

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, Mr Walker. The Public Administration Committee report on migration statistics was published before I was appointed by the House to be a member of that Committee, but it is, none the less, excellent. It is a testament to the fine leadership of the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and to the hard work of current and previous Committee members.

The Committee is tasked with scrutinising good government across all Departments. Many people would argue that after the defence of the realm, the Government’s most important role is to protect and uphold the rights and interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom. In order to do so, they need to know with a high degree of accuracy exactly whose rights and interests they must protect and uphold. That information is necessary to ensure that public services can be properly planned and to enable the Office for National Statistics to produce statistics in which the public and the House can have confidence.

It is absolutely clear that the citizens whose rights and interests the Government should protect are interested in who is in our country, why they are here, what they are doing and when they leave. In order for the Government to fulfil their duties to UK citizens, plan public services, produce accurate statistics and address the legitimate concerns of the people, they must do all they can to ensure that migration statistics are accurate, up to date and fit for purpose.

On the Isle of Wight, UKSA usually refers to the UK Sailing Academy, but it also stands for the UK Statistics Authority. Despite the excellent work of the former organisation on the island, I am speaking today of the latter institution. In 2009, the UKSA said:

“Both users and ONS’ statisticians generally agree that migration statistics are not fit for all of the purposes for which they are currently used and require further improvement.”

Between 2008 and 2012, some improvements were made in the statistical data, which the Public Administration Committee welcomed. Those improvements were not enough, however, to earn the wholehearted support of the Royal Statistical Society, the British Society for Population Studies or the Royal Geographical Society, although the latter body conceded that the ONS is doing a good job with poor data. The international passenger survey, which is used as the primary source for those statistics, was never intended for that purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has said. It is hardly surprising that the survey was not up to a job for which it was never designed, so more needs to be done.

The original recommendation from the Committee was that e-Borders data, due to be fully operational this year, should also be fed into the statistics. That was superseded by the news in March that Labour’s over-ambitious and badly implemented e-Borders scheme had to be scrapped. However, I welcome the Government’s commitment to make much more of the information from the border systems programme available to the ONS to help improve the statistics.

[Keith Vaz]

The e-Borders scheme is a particular concern of the Home Affairs Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that we still do not know why the agreement made between the previous Government and the company that was undertaking e-Borders went wrong? That is still the subject of litigation. When we have massive procurement, as we had with e-Borders, it is extremely important that we know what went wrong before we procure for the future.

[Mr Turner]

That is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.

I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to use data held by other countries. The Government are hamstrung by EU free movement legislation, which prevents their gathering information on why people from EU countries are coming to the UK and how long they intend to stay.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the normal price for a visa is £83, but for people staying a year or more the price is £300? That is a substantial sum. Surely some of that visa money should be allocated to ensuring that we have proper software and data collection systems in place. I do not apologise for going back to make certain that people are welcomed when they come into the United Kingdom via our airports. We want to ensure that people, particularly tourists, are not kept unduly in long queues while we collect the data that are necessary for us to have accurate information.

[Mr Turner]

We should be able to collect the data rapidly, as we all recognise. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering what can be done. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to make all possible information available to the ONS to help it improve its statistical analysis of migration figures. I ask him to keep in mind possible sources of information that might help the ONS and make those sources of information available, and to do so even when he is not being held directly to account by the Public Administration Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, the whole House or even those who sit in another place. I hope he is able to assure me that he will do so.

People across the UK, whatever their political persuasion, welcome the Government’s aim to cut immigration. In 2003, I made it clear that growing immigration levels would have an effect on the already overstretched jobs market, as well as on the public services to which immigrants would become entitled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) echoed my statement. There is huge demand for housing in our cities and larger towns, with consequent movement into more rural towns, which was called “white flight.” My statement followed the admission of the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), that he “hadn’t a clue” about the number of illegal immigrants in the UK.

Even some of those on the Opposition Benches now decry Labour’s disastrous policy of opening this country’s doors to all comers—a policy with no mandate, implemented in secret. Andrew Neather, a former Government adviser, suggested that Labour’s policy was

“to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

Labour conducted its affairs privately so that, by encouraging mass migration, it would not alienate its core working-class vote. Such actions are neither acceptable nor beneficial to the country in any way.

The Labour Government brought two and a half cities the size of Birmingham—a total of almost 3 million people—to this country without breathing a word. There is little doubt that we have made significant progress in putting better controls in place and repairing some of the damage, but we need accurate statistics that demonstrate that our policies are working. So as well as knowing who is coming in, we need to know who is leaving. I hope the Home Secretary’s expectation that full exit checks will be in place by next year is met.

I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that I understand how difficult a job my hon. Friend the Minister and his Conservative predecessors have had. They inherited a right old muddle, and sorting it out was never going to be easy or quick, but if people are to have confidence in migration statistics, those statistics need to chime with the reality of people’s day-to-day experiences. At present, the statistics simply do not do that, so I particularly welcome the Government’s sensible and positive response to the Committee’s recommendations on communicating the statistics to the public better. These are complex issues, but improvements in communicating the data will help the public to understand them better and lead to more informed debate, which is something we will all welcome.

14:06

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship of this important debate, Mr Walker. I did not plan to speak, but I will say a few words in support of the excellent report published by the Public Administration Committee. Those of us who sit on the Home Affairs Committee welcome the fact that other Committees are interested in migration issues. I am not in any way parochial, and I do not believe that there are bits of Government that should be reserved only for one Select Committee or another. Such oversight is a core function of the Public Administration Committee, which is so ably led by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). The Committee has produced a brilliant report that will help not only the Home Affairs Committee but other Select Committees that cover immigration policy, either directly or indirectly.

I will say a couple of things about the importance of accurate statistics. The hon. Gentleman is right that there will be a great deal of debate about immigration in the run-up to the next general election. We are in the odd situation of knowing the date of the general election. Subject to any changes that might occur in the coalition Government over the next few months, we know when the general election will take place and we know—one does not have to be a genius to know this—that immigration will probably be in the top three issues of concern to the British people. That is why it is so important that we have accurate information when immigration is debated in this House, and when it is debated outside by others who represent parties unable to get elected to this House. That is why the report is not only important but timely.

As the House goes on the slow journey to recess, some of us may choose to go abroad for a holiday—depending, of course, on whether our passports have been renewed. We will be watching and observing the “exit strategy” when we get to the airport. It has always been a mystery to me why we have to go through the great drama of supplying passport information and accurate information about our names, so that they do not differ in any way from our passports, prior to departure, yet after people check in and walk past the last person before getting to security, their passports do not really get checked.

I know that the Government’s commitment, which I am sure the Minister will reaffirm, is to have full exit checks by the time of the general election, so that by May 2015, we will have counted everyone out. However, I still do not understand why it is not possible, even at that stage—after checking in and walking past the last person before security—for the officers at Heathrow airport to check a passport on departure. After all, it is not a question of queues. I do not think any special arrangements are made for me or other members of the Home Affairs Committee—people may say, “If not, why not?”—but when I travel through Heathrow, I do not see many queues building up at the point where people show their tickets, walk through and get a little plastic bag to put in their liquids. There are queues before check-in—there is no doubt about that—and there are queues at security. There is an excellent opportunity to glance at people’s passports as they wait to go through security, because there are always queues there, whatever channel they go through.

[Mr Jenkin]

That is an interesting observation. The task of checking people’s luggage and what liquids they are carrying is far more complicated physically than checking passports or tickets or checking people in. However, where there has been a real will to try to reduce that anxious and tiresome part of the journey for passengers, great strides have been made in making a very painful process tolerable for passengers. Does that not show that where there is will, there is a way? We could get far more data from passengers as they go through ports of entry.

[Keith Vaz]

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: of course it can be done. It is an easy win for this Minister, who is a hard-working Minister—I think he has now been in the House three times this week and there is another Adjournment debate before six o’clock; I do not know whether he knew that. It is an easy win for him to announce this change. It needs the co-operation of security staff at Heathrow airport, of course, as well as that of BAA and others, including the airlines, but it can be done.

When I went on my last visit abroad and I gave my details to the people from the Office for National Statistics—they wanted to know my details; I do not know whether the Minister had sent someone to the airport to check whether I was coming back or not—I referred to this report by the Public Administration Committee. They were extremely grateful. They knew about it and they said, “When you go back, please remind everybody that we would like to do this survey for everybody, but we’re not given the resources to be able to do that.” I then asked whether it was the quick survey or the long survey and they said, “We’re happy to do the quick survey, but we would like to do everyone rather than the limited number that we do,” so there is a willingness. People want to be helpful. It is not a case of civil servants and other officials wanting to thwart the will of Parliament and the will of the British people; they want to help. Given that and given the arrangements that are made at airports, why on earth can we not bring this change into effect before 7 May 2015?

[Mark Reckless]

Can I clarify what is being suggested here? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was talking about quadrupling the size of the international passenger survey. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, instead of quadrupling the survey, it should be made universal? If so, would we then not be talking about the count, and would there not be a better way of doing that than having a separate person with a clipboard asking questions?

[Keith Vaz]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous member of the Home Affairs Committee, that we should be open to offers. Let us look and see what is available and what is the best way to do things. That approach may not be the best way to do things—I like what the Public Administration Committee has recommended—but it would certainly be an improvement on the existing situation.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because he and I went on new year’s day to check how many Romanians were arriving at Luton airport. That was because we did not trust the ONS or the media hype, so we went to see for ourselves what was going on. Unfortunately, we cannot do that when every single plane or coach arrives in the UK—because if we did, he would never see Mrs Reckless and I would never see my wife. The key thing is that there should be a practical way of getting over the problem. It is not rocket science.

Let us consider the options that are available, some of which have been described very eloquently, not only in the speech by the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee but in the Committee’s report. Let me say this about e-Borders. Whenever an immigration Minister has appeared before our Committee—certainly in the seven years since I have been Chairman—we have always asked him about e-Borders. I give the current Minister a free pass: he will be asked about it when he appears before us on 22 July, or possibly before, if the passport crisis is not sorted out very quickly.

Let me outline the issue. Of course the last Government were wrong to have entered into an agreement with a private company just because that company was able to provide such services in other parts of the world. I believe it was a huge mistake, and it would be good to look back and see who was responsible for it. I was a Minister in the last Government, although not the Minister who took the decision to enter into this agreement. However, it is important to look at the process. When the last Government signed the agreement with Raytheon, they did not put benchmarks in that agreement. As a result, Raytheon was able to turn round and say, “Well, we were not told what to do.” That is the subject of an arbitration that has been going on for, I think, four years. It could well be the longest arbitration in history, and every time our Committee asks for information, nobody wants to tell us anything about what is going on.

It is important to learn, although not so that we can blame Ministers in the last Government—as I say, two of them are in the Chamber today: my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and me. Rather, it is important to learn so that, when we procure services in future and civil servants and Ministers sign off deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds, the Government are clear about what they want and when they want it done, clear that it is being properly monitored, clear that there are penalties if what they want is not being done and clear that the company is clear as well. We are talking about £750 million. This is not chickenfeed. We need to treat taxpayers’ money carefully.

[Mark Reckless]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons why many parties to contracts provide for arbitration rather than litigation in the event of a dispute is that arbitration takes place in private, so people do not hear the detail about the case? Is that appropriate in any public contract, let alone one worth £750 million?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This is about the public knowing—it is public money that has gone into this—and we need to know precisely what was going on. We also need to know why it has taken four years. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was right to cancel the contract when he did, otherwise it would have drifted on, year after year. At the end of the day, however, we need to know what went wrong so that we do not do it again. For all we know, if we do not know what went wrong, this problem could happen again and again. It is vital that we get to the bottom of the problem of e-Borders.

I welcome this excellent report, which says some valuable things. The Home Affairs Committee continues, of course, to look at immigration and migration issues. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the best way to deal with the issue of migration and immigration is to have accurate statistics that everybody can sign up to. At the moment, we are conducting a debate without knowing the full facts.

14:18

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Chairman Walker—if that does not sound too much like Chairman Mao. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.

First, I say a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the presentation of the report by the Public Administration Committee. Given that immigration is one of the top three issues in the country, it is absolutely vital that we have a look at the underpinning foundation of the statistics and data that inform the debate about it.

I also thank the Minister, before he even makes his closing remarks, because I know that he is working exceptionally hard; he has worked exceptionally hard in all the jobs he has had. I am aware that we have the same agenda. We would like to see better statistics, but sometimes in coalition it can be tricky to get these things through at the pace that he may wish for.

I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible, but nothing I say today is to be taken as criticism; it is merely observation that there are better ways in which we can collect the statistics and more intelligent ways in which we can present them.

As a former shadow Minister for science with a degree in a social science—a semi-science—and as chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, I think that evidence is vital to any decision that we make in the public domain. Indeed, although I speak as a Back-Bench MP, I say as chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology that its mission is to ensure that any parliamentary debate and policy formed on the Floor of the House is informed by the data and evidence, and that those are behind the decisions.

The data are so important in the immigration debate—that has largely been highlighted by the migration report—because it is a sensitive issue in the public domain. If we consider it in a political sense, a Government could stand or fall on the basis of their immigration policies and how the data are presented, and upcoming parties not currently in this place could succeed or fail on the basis of immigration data. Our national cultural-social cohesion could implode on the basis of a lack or misrepresentation of immigration data, and our future economic prosperity and relationship with the European Union could depend on the data and their presentation. It is an overwhelmingly important and sensitive issue.

One of my key concerns is that when I say “immigration”, people think it means different things. Some people think it is all about illegal immigrants and get upset about it, some think about genuine asylum seekers and others think that we need more immigration, saying, “Surely we need more, because we need more work visas for those important jobs in society that we are currently unable to fill here in the UK. Of course, those people go back.” Some think specifically about Romanians and Bulgarians because of the recent public debate and some think about investors, bringing millions and sometimes billions of pounds here to the UK, buying nice houses in the centre of London. Others may be thinking about visitors coming to join their families for a period who may return a year or two later, and some may—admittedly, mistakenly—think that tourists are part of the immigration debate.

The word “immigration” and immigration data are proxies for so many other things. That is why it is important that we have great clarity about the data we collect and what they mean. We must ensure that they are statistically significant.

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. There are too many myths about immigration. That is why we need official statistics that people can sign up to before we can even start a debate. We are not saying that there should not be a debate; the hon. Gentleman knows that, having attended many debates in the House about immigration. Issues have been raised with him as they have with me. Once those data are available, the big issues that concern the public can be tackled.

[Adam Afriyie]

That is absolutely right. Clear, accurate and granular information, data and statistics will enable groups with a view on each category of immigration to take a reasoned view.

I often think that politicians’ use of statistics—I confess that this may include me in my early days—is like a drunk’s leaning on a lamp post, less for illumination and more for support. I do not mean to criticise the ONS or even the passenger survey, which is doing what it is told to do in the best way it can, but the danger of the Government’s or any politician’s leaning on the immigration data and statistics is that they are weak and will just fall over. Yet the public animosity and disharmony that can be created by the misuse or misrepresentation of the data are all too well known.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the £2 million, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said the Government are not willing to spend, is a tiny amount when it is considered that the same sum is proposed to be spent on a quarter of a mile of A road in my constituency? Why cannot the Home Office find the £2 million?

[Adam Afriyie]

The Home Office is doing difficult work in difficult circumstances of coalition. I agree with my hon. Friend. It would seem that spending £1 million or £2 million—or even £5 million or £10 million —to deal with such a vital issue at the heart of a current national debate, which could unsettle an entire nation, is a small sum, if that is what is required to put this matter right.

I suspect that only small sums and adaptations in how we use existing data and how we conduct the passenger surveys would be needed, and that those would assist enormously, in addition to the exit checks.

If we are to plan our public services, we need to have a good idea about what the immigration statistics and data are. It is interesting that the ONS said that the data at the moment

“should not be used as a proxy for flows of foreign migrants into the UK”.

The Oxford Migration Observatory stated:

“sampling errors are too large to measure with a reasonable degree of accuracy the number of migrants to a single region”

within

“the UK, or from a single country of origin”.

Yet if we listen to the public debate, including in my constituency, assumptions are already being made about particular areas and the effect of immigration. I have to admit that sometimes assumptions are presented by Departments, senior politicians and political leaders on the level of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration, for example, although the data just are not there to justify the statements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) made it clear on “Newsnight” a few weeks ago that, when looking at current data collection, a handful of Romanians or Bulgarians—four, five or six—making a certain statement could lead to a difference of 4,000 in our estimate of the number of Romanians or Bulgarians coming into the country. It is clear that the data are currently insufficient to draw conclusions or create policies from.

The current data are vague and self-selecting. People who go to another country wanting to stay there, knowing that there were no exit checks and that they could probably get away with it—not that I would do this—would, if they were desperate, answer appropriately to a question in a passenger survey about how long they intended to stay, to ensure that it looked okay. There is a lot of self-selection in who answers the survey and there will clearly be, if we are all reasonable human beings, an understanding that people will answer questions to serve their purpose, although I would hope that everyone is honest.

Although we want to get immigration levels down to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, with the data and statistics that have been available for the past four years our current estimates could be 200,000 or 250,000, one way or the other: these numbers are enormous and the statistical significance of the data really needs to be examined and reined in as soon as possible.

[Keith Vaz]

Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that, because of the problem with statistics, the Government will not meet its target or that we should not have a target because of the problem with statistics?

[Adam Afriyie]

A very apposite question. No, I am saying that we do not have any idea about whether these targets may be met. If the immigration figures came in at 30,000 or 40,000 a year, it could be argued by one side that this goal had been magnificently achieved. It could also be argued that the goal had been achieved if the figures came in at 200,000 or 150,000. Conversely, political opponents may argue that, given the statistical significance of these data, the goal has definitely not been achieved. Above all, in the absence of accurate, robust data, it is impossible to have a sensible public discourse.

Again, if we had the granularity of data that I and most hon. Members would like to see on the various categories of migrant in and out of Britain, we could have a robust argument about each category of immigration. Perhaps, in years to come it might not be necessary to have a blanket limit or target; we could take a more granular approach. For example, I would be in no way unhappy if we had an extra several hundred thousand students studying in our universities, paying tuition fees, helping to fund our great institutions and spreading around the world a deep well of good will on British culture, British language and the British way of being. That would be fantastic, because the evidence is fairly clear that the majority will return to their countries of origin and spread the message that Britain is a great place. That could enormously enhance our standing in the world and our economic performance. If we can get down to the granularity of debate, we will come to better policy solutions. In getting to the granularity of debate, I commend the Committee’s report, which makes a huge step in the right direction by observing that we need more granular data.

What is the solution? I do not purport to have all the solutions, but I put forward a few suggestions on data collection, based on the report, my experience and what is possible with technology. First, a little more data need to be collected in the international passenger survey, possibly as a short-term measure, until we resolve the whole situation. Having had a chat with the Minister, I accept that we may well need more data collected by the international passenger survey in the short term, but the location in which the data are collected might be relevant in coming up with better numbers.

It is also important that exit checks come in sooner rather than later. As Conservatives, we would have loved to have seen them come in very early in this Parliament, but sadly, in coalition, other priorities often get in the way. It may well be that there are elements among our current political friends, but usual foes, who believe in completely liberal border control, where people can move around without any checks at all. I recognise that that might be an element in the challenge of bringing the exit checks in sooner rather than later, but it is perfectly achievable by 2015.

When we talk about exit checks, we need to be mindful that someone would not necessarily have to queue and answer questions to exit the country. Indeed, when I visit many African and middle eastern countries, I have virtually no conversation at all. I simply walk into the country, they scan my passport, frown at me and ask one question. Then, as I leave the country, I hand the passport over, they scan it and say, “Have a nice day, sir”, and that is it. With technology, the idea that there would need to be intrusive surveys and so on is not necessarily right.

We also need to bear it in mind that the airlines and travel companies hold an enormous amount of electronic data, which raises the question of why we do not use those data. We type in all the details on easyJet when we fly abroad, as do others when they travel in from overseas. Why are those data not used—not all of them, but a reasonably relevant or statistically significant sample—to check people when they are coming in and going out? I am sure that parts of the data may be used for certain purposes, which the Minister cannot discuss. It would be such an easy win, however, to open up access to those data, which people are freely providing when they travel, to get a better grip and understanding of the various types of migration and whether people are leaving the country.

Finally, I know that there is a will among Conservative Members of Parliament, many elements of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in Parliament that we get the issue resolved. I urge the Minister, for the sake of national harmony and a sensible national debate in the run-up to the 2015 election—when people must make their minds up about all sorts of things, including, hopefully, in the not too distant future, whether they want the UK to remain in the EU—to put some further measures in place, so that people are clear on the various categories of immigration data before that election. We would then not need broad, sweeping statements about immigrants in general; we would have a precise and targeted understanding of each of the groups that we approve or, in some cases, disapprove of, and the debate can become more rational.

I urge the Minister to take another look at the report and to bring forward more speedily some changes or suggested changes for the IPS, the ONS and the speeding up of exit checks from the United Kingdom. We can be a happy nation. The British people deserve better immigration data, particularly given that they will not be that expensive to collect.

14:35

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Walker. In fact, it is such a pleasure that it will take several months for me to lose the image of “Chairman Walker”, which the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) put in my mind. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), his Committee and the work it has done. We came into the House on the same day—9 April 1992—and I cannot recall many occasions when we have agreed on every issue, but I say, with genuine openness and the hand of friendship, that the report is excellent. It puts a number of issues on the agenda and suggests policy areas that we should look at and seriously consider adopting. I cannot find much that I disagree with in his tone or policy or the tenor in which he began the debate.

I disagree with one or two of the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on the previous Government’s record. We have had discussions on that before. There has been unanimity across the House today on the importance of integrity in statistics and of understanding who is coming to the country, who is leaving, why they are here and what procedures we undertake. It is important that we ensure for the public we serve that there is reliability, trust and confidence in those statistics. Today’s debate is important and welcome, because the Public Administration Committee’s report on how we calculate migration statistics has raised serious questions on the statistics’ reliability, robustness and usefulness. The report raises a number of extremely serious questions on a range of issues, which the Government need to focus on.

If there is one area that I want to press the Minister on, it is that the Government’s response to the report was disappointing in addressing some of the serious issues raised by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and his Committee. There has been unanimity from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Windsor, and other Members who have intervened, which shows that there is genuine support for bringing forward the proposals. The report and the response from the UK Statistics Authority have made categorically clear the words of Andrew Dilnot, the chair of UKSA, who said that

“these statistical sources are currently not fully meeting all the different needs of the users of these statistics.”

It is important that we know who comes to the United Kingdom, who leaves, when they leave and, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Windsor gave, why they are here. We all have experience of discussing immigration and, as he said, there are many types of immigration, whether for business, education, tourism or asylum. The more information we have and the greater our depth of knowledge, the better our response will be, whatever our political view on these issues.

If I look at the Committee’s recommendations, I can find, without repeating too much of what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, little with which I disagree. Recommendation 1 states that,

“the International Passenger Survey is inadequate for measuring, managing and understanding the levels of migration that are now typical in the UK.”

I agree. Recommendation 2 states that,

“e-Borders data has the potential to provide better headline estimates of immigration, emigration and net migration”.

I agree. The report states:

“Data held by other countries on migration to and from the UK could help improve the depth and quality of UK migration statistics.”

I agree. Paragraph 6 of the report states:

“If the International Passenger Survey is not an adequate source for this information, and no other sources are available, new sources of migration statistics are needed”.

I agree. Where it says that we should look at building on the principle, if not the current practice, of the e-Borders system, I agree.

Finally, on the public’s understanding of statistics, it is important, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Windsor, that we get clarity and a full and accurate picture of migration to and from the UK. The different types of immigration have different impacts and it is important that we have information at hand. In other words, the report is helpful in showing that whatever we have now, which is partly due to the legacy of the previous Government and previous Governments before them and partly due to what has happened under this Government’s watch, is not fit for purpose, and that we need to consider the Committee’s recommendations.

I want to focus on the e-Borders project, because work needs to be done and there is potential for the project to be developed to ensure that we get the necessary information to meet the objectives that all hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned. Earlier this year, I was fortunate enough to travel to America to visit relatives. Before we travelled, I had to fill in an online ESTA—electronic system for travel authorisation—form for my whole family in order to provide our details to the US Government. It took me no more than 15 minutes to fill in the details for five members of my family. When we went to America, the details were checked and agreed and we were in. When we left, they were checked and agreed and we were out. It is a simple concept, which any Government should consider putting in place.

Although the previous Government tried to implement the e-Borders project, the coalition agreement also makes reference to such a scheme. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex made some play about difficulties with coalition partners, but page 21 of the coalition agreement states:

“We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.”

We have only about nine months for an agreement to be made in order for that objective to be achieved. The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said on the “Today” programme on 11 April 2012 that,

“with our e-Borders system, we are very close to 100% coverage of flights coming from outside the EU, so we know who everyone is before they get on the plane, which is a much more effective way of exporting the border if you like.”

After four years in office and after spending £185 million, however, the head of UK Border Force, Sir Charles Montgomery, announced to the Home Affairs Committee in March that the scheme had been cancelled. The Minister is shaking his head, but we need clarity and the Minister has the opportunity to provide it. There has been no statement to the House or explanation. There has been no guidance or indication of whether that £185 million of taxpayers’ money is still investable in relation to the objectives of the Public Administration Committee.

[Adam Afriyie]

The right hon. Gentleman is making one or two political points, but will he clarify whether the Labour party is happy that it abolished universal exit and entry border controls in 1998, pretty much as it came into power? That seems to be the root cause of most of the challenges that the coalition Government are trying, somewhat belatedly, to repair today.

[Mr Hanson]

I anticipated that question and looked at the matter prior to today’s debate. The Library of the House of Commons, which the hon. Gentleman will agree is independent and provides impartial advice, informed me that exit checks were abolished by the Conservative Government in 1994. A Library briefing paper states:

“Paper-based embarkation (‘exit’) controls for passengers departing from the UK were ended in two stages. Checks on persons travelling from sea ports and small airports to the EU (which covered 40 per cent of departing passengers) were abolished in 1994. The remaining checks were abolished in 1998.”

The Labour Government, having been in government for three years, decided in 2000 to reintroduce checks, which is why we began the e-Borders programme.

The e-Borders project still has some issues outstanding, including, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the dispute with Raytheon. I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister, asking him when the dispute might be resolved, what the terms of any final resolution will be and when he intends to bring the matter back to the House, all of which is integral to the objectives suggested by the Public Administration Committee’s report. We need political consensus to ensure that over the next three or four years, whoever the next Government are, a system of exit checks is put in place that meets the objectives desired by every Member who has spoken today.

[Mark Reckless]

Does the shadow Minister share my concern that an implication of contracts providing for arbitration rather than litigation in the event of a dispute is that that arbitration takes place in secret?

[Mr Hanson]

I take two points from major computing contracts. First, there is a lack of public scrutiny and transparency about the methods, the drawing up of contracts and the terms and conditions. It would be helpful if Parliament and the public could have that scrutiny. I would like agreed final contracts to be made public and open to scrutiny and benchmarking and testing by the public. Secondly—this is not meant to be critical of anyone in particular—I was fortunate to be a Minister for 12 years and I often got involved in a major computing contract after it had been agreed by somebody else or at the end of a review and found that Governments are good at policy, but not at delivery. Benchmarking, the methods of control over major contracts and whether or not the expertise is there to implement major contracts are issues that we need to consider in detail.

[Mr Jenkin]

Just as an aside, if the implementation is no good, that means that the policy was no good, because there is no point in one without the other.

We are of course outside the Schengen area, so exit and entry checks mean nothing unless we can check people coming across our borders from other European Union countries within the Schengen area. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that his party’s policy is that we should be able to check any passenger coming in or out of the UK from or to another EU country regardless of the free movement provisions, and that we should be able to ask them who they are, why they are coming here, where they are going to, and all the other questions that we would ask any other person coming in or out of our country?

[Mr Hanson]

I will give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer: yes. It is extremely important that we can make such checks. I support the principle of free movement, which involves a range of issues, but it is still important, as we are outside and will remain outside of the Schengen area, that we are able to control our borders.

Given the comments of the director general of UK Border Force in March to the Home Affairs Committee, we need clarity on the status of the e-Borders project. The Minister shakes his head again, but we need clarity on the programme’s trajectory and we need to know when he expects to achieve 100% coverage, and the total cost. He also needs to provide information about progress in the contract discussions with Raytheon. If the Government are to stick to a net migration target, they need to know the issues arising from migration in and out of the United Kingdom. Without up-to-date information, as outlined by the Public Administration Committee, they will not be able to keep their promise on net migration.

Getting the figures right is also important because, as everyone who has spoken today has said, the integrity of the figures and our trust and confidence in them are what will give us permission to debate this issue in a positive way in the run-up to the election. The issue of immigration has an element of toxicity to it—it is difficult to debate, and there are a range of political opinions about it. Our debate will be much better informed if in future we have clarity about which people are coming to the United Kingdom, how, where and when they are doing so, the basis upon which they are here and, crucially, when they leave.

That is my final point: as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, we still do not know how many people are overstaying their visas, where they are and what the position is on being able to remove them. That undermines the integrity of our immigration system. I want to see that integrity in the system, with basic information collected in a meaningful way. Dare I say it, we have the opportunity to get political consensus on doing that, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

14:50

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the work of his Committee and for his speech this afternoon. He advocated the points his Committee made on the quality of immigration information, as well as presenting the broader issues about immigration, its importance as an issue to the public and the occasional complexity of the debate about it. Those points were echoed in contributions by other right hon. and hon. Members, and were made clearly by my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).

Immigration impacts upon every part of our lives. It is important that the debate about and Government policy on immigration are well informed—that is why I welcome the contribution from the Public Administration Committee—and migration statistics clearly play a crucial role in that, so it is right that we discuss how we can ensure that they are as accurate and as relevant as possible. I therefore express the gratitude of the Government to the Committee for both its report on migration statistics and the wide-ranging programme of work that it has undertaken recently on statistical issues more generally.

In our response to the Committee the Government welcomed many of the positive points made. It is heartening to see the Committee acknowledge the improvements since 2011 in the breadth of migration data published by the Home Office. Those improvements have also been welcomed in feedback from a wide range of users of the statistics. We agree with the recommendations on better communication of migration statistics—a complex issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight highlighted. Not everyone will be as familiar with the intricacies of those statistics, or where they can be found, as the hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon. I am therefore pleased by the positive view of the Committee about the accessibility of our statistics on the new Home Office website.

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

We also agree that public understanding of migration issues can be poor and that ongoing work to improve that understanding is required. I welcome the support of the Committee and everyone who has contributed to the debate this afternoon in that context. It is to improve public understanding that we work closely with the Office for National Statistics on the migration statistics quarterly report, which provides an overview of migration trends each quarter. The report details both ONS statistics and Home Office data on visas and asylum to provide the public with a coherent picture of migration. The ONS is the independent and trusted source of immigration statistics, and I am pleased with the significant steps it has taken to improve how it presents those statistics. I know many users have already commented on the improvements in its webpages about migration. Last week, the ONS launched a public consultation on further changes to the quarterly release, and I urge all those with an interest in these issues to contribute to that so that we can make further improvements.

Although the Government welcome a number of the Committee’s proposals on clearer communications, which chime well with our approach and that of the Office for National Statistics, as our response indicated we do not agree with all of the Committee’s recommendations. I will address the main points in that regard, as well as dealing with other issues that have come up during the course of the debate.

First, we do not agree that the international passenger survey is inadequate for measuring migration. The view of the independent UK Statistics Authority is that our migration statistics are the best available within the current level of resources and that the ONS has taken significant steps in recent years to ensure that the statistics are as reliable and accurate as possible. I will go on to explore that in further detail.

The issues of cost, value and expenditure have been raised this afternoon and were also highlighted during the Committee’s evidence session on this matter. It may be helpful if I provide some more context. The international passenger survey already screens close to 800,000 travellers per year to determine whether they are migrants. It has been suggested that we increase the sample size—indeed, that was suggested this afternoon. In oral evidence to the Committee the issue of quadrupling the budget for the IPS came up. At that time, both the Chair of the Committee and Guy Goodwin, the expert witness from the Office for National Statistics, agreed that that would be bad value for money.

Our current view aligns with that of the ONS: expanding the survey would be unlikely to provide value for money. However, I am conscious of the need to continue to discuss and reflect further on these issues. I note that the Prime Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), Chair of both the Justice Committee and the Liaison Committee, about his recent evidence to the Liaison Committee, giving an undertaking that the Home Office would continue to discuss this issue with the ONS and would inform the Public Administration Committee of the outcome of those discussions. It is fair and appropriate that we continue the dialogue and discussion on the passenger survey and any improvements that could or should be made to it in the context of both the report’s recommendations and our proper consideration of the facts.

In that context, it is important to note that we have been sharing data from what is known as the Semaphore system, which uses advance passenger information. I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the statement released by the ONS on 13 June, in which it underlined the fact that it had received an extract of Semaphore data and set out the work it was undertaking in respect of those data. The ONS is doing further analysis of the data and will be providing further responses and updates in due course, so work is ongoing in that regard.

Alongside that, on 13 June we saw the user update on that work, and there will be further important updates at the end of the year. The ONS has committed to that, and I am happy to provide further details to the Chair of the Select Committee. I am also pleased to be able to reassure the House that the Home Office will continue to collaborate closely with the ONS in its work on this matter. I am happy to provide a further report on that work at the same time as the ONS provides its update.

[Mr Jenkin]

In my remarks, I raised the question of the 2011 study conducted by the Home Office into the expansion of the use of separate migration survey data. That would cost only £2 million, so is much better value than increasing the size of the international passenger survey. Is the Minister going to come on to that point in his remarks?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend did mention that specific aspect. The current discussions with the ONS indicate that its current approach is, rather, to look at other forms of data—other administrative data, such as those from the Department for Work and Pensions—to better inform the statistics. That is its preferred option for this type of work. I give a commitment to discuss the issues again as part of our discussions with the ONS, but that is its preferred approach instead of setting up a separate survey. I have noted the point that my hon. Friend has made, following on from the Select Committee’s recommendations, and we will check and confer with the ONS that that remains its preferred response in providing more localised data in order to inform this subject more carefully. That is certainly the feedback that we have had thus far in respect of what might be beneficial or might help to supplement the information provided by the international passenger survey.

The proposal to increase the IPS may not provide the best value for money, but that does not mean that we or the ONS are at all complacent, or that we do not recognise where improvements can be made. In that context—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor advanced this point—it has been acknowledged that there were problems with the IPS’s estimates following the large surge in eastern European migrants following EU enlargement in 2004. We know that the absence of transitional controls, unlike elsewhere, in the majority view resulted in an unprecedented and surprising number of new arrivals in the years that followed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex highlighted, that significant change also surprised the statisticians. That is why the ONS has taken steps since then to address the coverage of the IPS survey. The ONS is rightly independent and I cannot speak for it, but the revised statistics it has published indicate that some of the issues have been resolved by the size of the survey and some of the specific questions that are being raised as part of its migration statistics improvement programme. The problems that the ONS found were in the survey design, and they have been addressed by recalibrating the survey’s coverage and increasing the sample size as part of that programme.

Questions have been asked about whether the figures are reliable enough for the Government to use them as a basis for our aim on net migration. I accept that any reliance on a survey to monitor a policy objective inevitably means confidence intervals in the central estimates. However, this is not a new issue. Survey estimates have been used in this way for many years to monitor Government policy and societal changes more generally. They are well-established scientific techniques used to ensure that social surveys are well designed and their estimates robust. That is why I would take the advice of the UK Statistics Authority that the central statistical estimate derived from the IPS is currently the best available estimate of net migration.

It must also be remembered that we have a lot of information on migration to monitor migration policy from a wide range of other sources that provide a clear and coherent picture of trends. That picture is reported every quarter in the ONS’s migration statistics quarterly report, and I welcome the steps that the ONS is taking to improve the way in which the data are reported and presented. Those data sources continue to be developed and improved—for example, with the release of additional information by the Home Office on certificates of acceptance of study. The new data allow the public and us to see the impact of the Government’s policies to close down bogus colleges. My hon. Friends will no doubt be aware of my most recent announcements on this issue.

As well as reporting on trends, it is important to look at the impact of migration, and we are grateful for the excellent work of the ONS, through its reports from the 2011 census and other sources, in informing the British public clearly and authoritatively about the significant changes in population that we have seen over the past decade and the impact of migration on the make-up of the population in the UK.

[Adam Afriyie]

I appreciate some of the assurances the Minister is giving. General key concerns are whether the changes to which he is referring—I appreciate that they are not all in place—will mitigate the criticisms or observations by the Royal Statistical Society and the Oxford migration observatory that, with the present statistics and information, we cannot at the moment work out reliably people’s source country or changes in the migratory patterns from individual source countries in the EU or elsewhere, or the impact on specific regions in the United Kingdom. Is he satisfied that with the changes being made those concerns will be mitigated?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come to exit checks. The way in which advance passenger information data can be used to supplement and for support is important and I will address that directly. I highlight the fact that there are other sources of data. My hon. Friend may be aware of the workforce data survey and the use of the statistics for national insurance registrations. The IPS itself highlights and provides data in its reports and analysis in respect of different countries and provides separate analyses of where those flows come from, such as net migration from outside and from within the EU, and it produces the graphs that my hon. Friend has no doubt seen, tracking those back over 30 years. It gives a sense of long-term trends; it is important to understand where there may be growth in particular areas and what that might mean in terms of informing policy.

It is important to recognise some of the excellent and innovative research and analysis that has increased our knowledge of migration—for example, the migrant journey reports, the report on the social and public service impact of migration, and the recent report on labour market changes. All that work is critical in helping us to understand and appreciate the impact of migration on our country.

I highlighted the 2011 census, which provides extremely valuable data that has captured a much broader range of information on migrants than any census previously. The new census questions on the passports that people hold and the length of time they have lived in the UK recognise the strong public concerns about immigration. We welcome that new statistical resource, which will go some way to meeting the Committee’s recommendation, but I will come to further refinements.

The Home Office has commissioned additional data to inform our understanding, such as a new question on emigration in the international passenger survey, the first results from which are now in the public domain, and a new question for the labour force survey on why foreign respondents had originally come to the UK. The breadth and depth of that work reinforces the fact that no single data source can provide a comprehensive picture of migration. That is why I also welcome the work in the UK statistical system to develop and enhance the range of sources, which together mean that we have a picture of migration that I believe is as good as that available to any other country across the globe.

I noted what the shadow Minister said about filling out the ESTA form and how that might be used. It is interesting to note that the US uses population surveys, not the ESTA system, to measure migration. It is important to recognise the interrelationship between the two, and that in some respects the information from e-Borders may help to supplement, but not replace, other information.

[Mr Hanson]

The point I was making about the ESTA system was that—unlike, potentially, our visa system—the Americans would know when and whether I had left the country.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman draws me on to the e-Borders system and its programme. We hear the point that the Committee has made in respect of that. While valuable, the border systems data are, in our judgment, not the right way to measure immigration flows, for which we believe that well-designed surveys are more appropriate. The data do not capture passengers’ onward travel plans or duration of stay, so they could not be directly used to measure long-term international migration. Rather, they are designed to alert us to passengers of interest leaving and entering the country, so that we can strengthen security and immigration controls. They allow law enforcement partners to target and monitor those seeking to travel to and from the UK who might harm this country’s interests—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor highlighted. They are an extremely valuable tool; indeed, since 2010 our border systems have issued alerts resulting in more than 13,300 arrests, including 60 for murder, 59 for kidnap and 167 for rape.

I therefore understand why the Committee took the view that border systems data might entirely replace the IPS. However, that is at odds with the statistical advice we have received and the evidence that academic experts provided to the Committee. None the less, it is important to see how the information can be used to interpret what is happening. That is why it is important to share Semaphore data with the ONS, so that the ONS can carry out further analysis.

I want to come back on some of the points made about exit checks. The Home Office is on track to meet by April 2015 the commitment to introduce exit checks on those who leave the UK via scheduled international air, sea and rail services. Exit check capability will be founded on advance passenger information, supplemented by embarkation checks at ports, where necessary. That will further bolster border security.

Exit checks will also identify individuals who are wanted by the police, who pose security, immigration or customs threats, or who fail to comply with the conditions of their visas. It is important that checks are used in that way. We have introduced a power in the Immigration Act 2014 to enable those already involved in outbound passenger processes—for example, the staff of airlines, other carriers and port operators, as well as others—to integrate embarkation checks with existing processes where necessary. There is also a power to compel them to do so, if necessary.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister say what the position is on non-scheduled traffic—in particular, private flights and through small airfields and small ports? I have tested him on those issues in parliamentary questions and have had no reply as yet, although that is for reasons of national security, which I understand.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Border Force, which is led by Sir Charles Montgomery, takes the issue of small airfields and the maritime arena very seriously. Indeed, those flying in or out of airfields must provide various reports, and that is monitored to ensure there is a focus on border security. We are focused on all those issues, and Border Force is attentive to those arrangements, as well as to broader approaches and the advance passenger information provided in respect of existing scheduled airlines and other forms of transport.

I want to come back to some of the accusations the right hon. Gentleman made, which may be founded on a reading of press reports following the appearance of the director general of Border Force at the Home Affairs Committee in March 2014. Sir Charles Montgomery wrote to the Committee to explain that the reporting in the media was “factually incorrect”. He said that the work of the e-Borders programme

“has been incorporated within the…Border Systems Programme”.

None of this work has been suspended; indeed the pace of development has quickened. The Home Office remains committed to delivering exit checks by 2015. It was never the intention of the e-Borders programme, as now incorporated in the border systems programme, to deliver a direct measure of net migration.

As a Government, we must decide what is feasible, taking account of expert evidence. The reasons why we will not be able to rely on the border systems data to measure international migration were set out in the UK Statistics Authority and Government responses to the Public Administration Committee’s report. I will not repeat all those points here, but we hold detailed information on those passengers required to apply for a visa. However, Home Office systems do not require information from those travelling from other EU countries. There is, therefore, a limit to what visa data provide.

Borders system data collect information on an individual’s travel documents, so one might imagine that one could track travel movements over time to identify the proportion of migrants. However, Professor Salt, who provided expert witness evidence to the Committee, alluded to the fact that this is not a simple matter. Difficulties associated with dual nationality, lost and renewed passports and changes of name preclude the possibility of producing statistically reliable estimates of migration flows. That means the data do not meet the very fine tolerances that would be required for a reliable statistical estimation of migration.

As I mentioned, that does not mean that data cannot be used to identify individuals of interest for valuable operational purposes. The ONS also believes there are significant benefits in using the border systems data, which will help to improve IPS weighting methodology and the identification of the main flows into and out of the UK. That will significantly enhance the degree to which we can rely on the IPS, but it does not imply that we can replace the IPS completely.

The new exit checks system, which will be introduced by April next year, will give us, for the first time, a more complete picture of those leaving the UK. The system will improve our ability to take appropriate enforcement action against those who have potentially overstayed or are abusing the UK’s health and welfare systems. However, it will not, on its own, provide a replacement for the comprehensive estimates of the number of migrants arriving in and leaving the country.

That said, the Government acknowledge the importance of the debate. That is why we will keep under review the arrangements for collecting statistics in this vital policy area. Only by ensuring that policy making and public debate are as well informed as possible can we continue to build on the successes we have already achieved. I very much welcome the contribution the Committee has made. I also welcome the contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made this afternoon. We will keep the issue under close focus, given the importance of reliable statistics and the faith and trust that the public put in them. That will inform the important debate on immigration into this country, as well as Government policy on this essential issue.

15:17

[Mr Jenkin]

Thank you, Mr Brady, for taking the Chair. I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate—particularly two members of my Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who reminded us that we can help to inform our own immigration data by sharing data with other countries.

I fear that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is on the wrong track. He was complimentary about my report, I hasten to add, and I am grateful to him; but a massively larger international passenger survey is not the best use of resource, however enthusiastic the people doing it might be. His question about why arbitration on the e-Borders contract is taking so long was apposite. I hope that the Minister will consider that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is right to say that if we want more granular data, we need to collect it. Despite what the Government say about the inadequacy of e-Borders or border systems data and advance passenger information, I cannot help but feel that we could make better use of it, particularly when it can be cross-referred with visa data information that will be collected from 2015.

I commend the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), for his bipartisan approach. I draw comfort from his remarks and those of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. There appears to be a degree of cross-party consensus in support of the general thrust of our report and on the need to deal urgently with the issues it raises.

My hon. Friend the Minister showed the extraordinary complexity of the issues in his response, and I am grateful for what he said. My parting thought for him is about not dismissing the fact that checks are made on passports—and will be made on visas—when people enter and leave the UK. We can surely use those administrative data in conjunction with other data. We were not calling for the e-Borders data to replace the international passenger survey data, but we do want to press the Government to get systems going to enable those data to be used to inform the survey data. That would give us far more confidence about the IPS data and the component parts of those data about where people are going and the groups within the sample. That is the passing thought that I want to press on my hon. Friend—I think he said yes, sotto voce, but I will not require Hansard to record that comment, as I am not sure whether I understood him correctly.

I thank you Mr Brady, and Mr Walker, for chairing the debate. We will keep an eye on the matters in question.

Question put and agreed to.

15:20

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

Thursday 26 June 2014

British Business Bank

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on the British Business Bank.

The British Business Bank is already achieving significant results as over 30,000 businesses are benefiting from its programmes. Last year, £782 million of new lending and investment in UK small firms was generated by business bank programmes—this is double the level of activity generated by Government finance programmes to small business in 2012-13.

The British Business Bank has also played an important role in promoting a wider range of finance options. A total of 61% of its activity is channelled through smaller investors and lenders, with only 39% of support going through the big four banks. Over the coming years, I expect that this bias away from the big banks will continue.

Examples of the innovative investments over the last year include: £7.8 million committed to the Dawn Capital II venture capital fund; £25 million to the Episode 1 venture capital fund; £30 million committed to Praesidian Capital Europe debt fund; £15 million in BMS finance, £40 million invested through Funding Circle and £20 million in the Sussex Place Ventures capital fund. In all this cases, the British Business Bank’s investments of public money have been made alongside private sector investors, so crowding in new finance for small business in the UK.

In addition to this, the British Business Bank also funds the start-up loans programme, which has lent £70 million to new entrepreneurs in the UK. The bank has increased utilisation of the enterprise finance guarantee to £348 million—up by 21% year on year. This programme helps firms with good cash flow but low levels of collateral to obtain bank finance.

Today I am publishing the new strategic plan for the British Business Bank which sets out our ambitious plans for further increasing the impact of the institution. The full board of the British Business Bank is now in place, as are the majority of the staff and senior management team, operating out of the headquarters in Sheffield as well as, temporarily, the BIS office in London. The next stage will be to complete state aid negotiations with the European Commission later this year. At this point, responsibility for the assets and staff currently of the bank will transfer fully to the new corporate structures we have put in place.

I would also like to inform the House of the publication today of a new business finance guide aimed at making smaller businesses aware of the options for finance available across the market produced by the British Business Bank and the ICAEW. It has been produced in association with trade bodies representing all the major sources of funding—as well as the main business representative bodies. I will be launching the guide in Committee Room 10 at 11.00 today as part of a session on access to finance.

I am making copies of the strategic plan and the new business finance guide available in the Vote Office. The strategic plan for the British Business Bank can be found on gov.uk and the British Business Bank website.

Tax Policy

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

The bank levy, a permanent tax on banks’ balance sheet equity and liabilities, was introduced by the Government from 1 January 2011. It remains an essential policy tool, in helping to ensure a fair contribution from the banking sector and provide incentives for banks to move towards more stable funding profiles, increasing their resilience to liquidity shocks.

Despite recent changes to simplify the tax base and better align it with the regulatory regime, a number of concerns have been repeatedly raised by the sector in respect of the levy’s existing design:

banks’ balance sheets, and thus bank levy receipts, remain highly sensitive to economic and regulatory change;

the need for successive changes to the bank levy rate in order to achieve the revenue target has, it is claimed, created some uncertainty and impacted on perceptions of UK competitiveness; and

the marginal cost of the bank levy has, it is claimed, created risks of distortion and unintended impacts on banks’ behaviour.

Accordingly, the Government announced that they were willing to explore (on a non-committal basis) whether a revenue-neutral reform to the bank levy charging mechanism, in which the headline rate would be replaced by a new banding approach for determining a bank’s charge, could help to address these concerns and increase the predictability and sustainability of bank levy receipts.

Feedback from banks, building societies and advisory bodies as part of the consultation process suggests that it would not, irrespective of how it was structured.

Instead, it was considered that a banding approach would create uncertainty over banks’ charges, strengthen the incentives for activities to be relocated overseas and create arbitrary differences between banks’ effective tax rates and the relevance of the levy’s behavioural incentives.

Reflecting on these concerns—which were raised by banks of different domicile, structure and balance sheet size and trajectory—the Government have decided against the introduction of a banding approach for the bank levy at Finance Bill 2014 and have no plans to consider this idea further.

Two wider revenue-neutral proposals were put forward by the sector as part of the consultation, both of which may warrant further evaluation.

First, a technical amendment was proposed to the bank levy legislation, aiming to address certain banks inability to accrue the costs of the bank levy for quarterly reporting purposes, which is seen to create an inaccurate representation of quarterly operating profit, reduce comparability in interim results and necessitate careful market and shareholder explanation.

Secondly, a number of respondents suggested that the levy could be applied to the opening rather than closing balance sheet, in order to provide greater certainty to banks over their in-year charge and allow them to make more informed commercial decisions over short-term investment horizons.

The case for making these changes remains unclear and the Government need to give further consideration as to their merit, legality and legislative deliverability. However, the Government intend to maintain a dialogue with the sector on these points.

Overall, the Government would like to thank those who participated in the consultation process. The views put forward have been, and will continue to be, valuable in informing policy decisions in this area.

Openness of Local Government

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Through the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, the coalition Government are committed to opening up council meetings in England to digital and social media, updating the provisions of Margaret Thatcher’s Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 to a digital age. This will give the press and public new rights to film, report, record, blog and tweet council meetings, allowing the public to see the good work that councillors do, and increase the understanding of local democracy in action.

The draft “Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014”, which have been laid before Parliament, implement these provisions. Without prejudging the consent of Parliament, it is important that local government is in a position to implement promptly these new access rules, including those cases where current Standing Orders might not be unambiguously in line with the new requirements. To facilitate these changes and ensure the smooth introduction of the new rights, the Government are undertaking not to make the statutory instrument (which would come into force on the day after that on which it is made) until at least 28 days after the day on which parliamentary approval for the statutory instrument is given. In taking this approach we have also had regard to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the draft regulations.

We will also shortly be sending to local authorities a draft version of a new plain English guide on openness of council meetings, to explain the new rights and duties the regulations would bring. I will place a copy in the Library of the House in due course. Following any parliamentary approval, we will then publish a final plain English guide for the press and public. In the light of recent reports of journalists and bloggers being obstructed at council meetings of certain local authorities, we will highlight the need for councils to provide reasonable facilities to the free press (including print media, film crews, hyper-local journalists and bloggers) in a way that still allows for the orderly conduct of a meeting. We also wish to make crystal clear that council meetings in England should be conducted in English, and not in a foreign language.

Most town halls in England are already embracing such transparency, and do not need to wait for permission from Whitehall to open their doors to the press and public. However, a small minority are dragging their feet; Ministers want to make it clear that there is absolutely no reason for the public not to be able to exercise their new rights once the secondary legislation has been approved by Parliament and made.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The remaining provisions of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (the Act) will come into force on 10 December 2014, subject to parliamentary approval. These provisions include section 9 of the Act which provides for the conversion of civil partnership into marriage and schedule 5 of the Act which makes provisions concerning married persons or civil partners who change their legal gender. The Government has also today published:

a consultation on marriage according to the usages of non-religious belief organisations, as required by section 14 of the Act. The consultation is available on the Ministry of Justice website at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/marriages-by-non-religious-belief-organisations.

the report on the conclusions of the review of civil partnership in England and Wales, as required by section 15 of the Act. The report is available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-future-of-civil-partnership-in-england-and-wales.

the report on the review of survivor benefits under occupational pension schemes, as required by section 16 of the Act. The report is available on the Department for Work and Pensions website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/occupational-pension-schemes-review-of-survivor-benefits.

Gifting Package (Republic of Kazakhstan)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I have today laid before Parliament a Ministry of Defence departmental minute describing a gifting package which the UK intends to make to the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Central Asia is a region of growing importance to the UK’s security and prosperity. The UK and the international community must continue to influence and engage with the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the other central Asian republics, on a range of issues, including counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and border security, if we are effectively to promote wider regional security and stability.

The Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan have played a constructive role supporting ISAF operations in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan will face increased security challenges once ISAF has withdrawn from Afghanistan; the international community has a part to play in preparing its security forces for these challenges. Kazakhstan also aspires to develop and deploy its troops in support of UN peacekeeping tasks. The departmental minute, which I have today laid before Parliament, describes a gifting package to the Republic of Kazakhstan of surplus quad bikes with trailers and handheld night vision equipment that is intended to contribute to this. Both items have been examined and cleared against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, which includes an assessment of whether the equipment might be used for human rights violations or internal repression, the risk to UK forces and the risk of diversion to an undesirable end user. Subject to completion of the departmental minute process, delivery is expected to be undertaken during the summer of 2014.

Service Complaints Commissioner's Sixth Annual Report

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am pleased today to publish the MOD’s formal response to the Service Complaints Commissioner’s (SCC) sixth annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

The response sets out how the MOD proposes to address each of the new recommendations made by the commissioner in her latest report. We are committed to ensuring that our service personnel and their families have a complaints system in which they can have confidence, and one which is simpler and quicker. That is why we introduced the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill on 5 June to make improvements to the system and to create the first service complaints ombudsman.

No servicemen or women should lack confidence in seeking redress through the complaints process, and we know that to encourage them to do so we need a system that is fairer, more effective and more efficient than at present. While the Bill is progressing, we will continue to learn from the SCC’s annual reports and implement lessons from the services’ own continuous improvement programmes.

Energy Savings

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The Government are today publishing the Government response to the energy savings opportunity scheme (ESOS) consultation and laying draft regulations in Parliament to give effect to the policy.

ESOS will require large enterprises to undertake energy audits to identify opportunities to save money on energy bills through improved energy efficiency. It is estimated that the scheme will deliver £1.6 billion of net benefit to the UK.

The scheme is the Government’s approach to meeting the requirements of article 8(4-6) of the EU energy efficiency directive (2012/27/EU).

In developing this scheme, officials in my Department have worked closely with colleagues across Government and with industry experts. Government consider that ESOS demonstrates a proportionate approach, in line with principles of better regulation—we expect the scheme will yield significant net benefits for the UK as a result of the energy saving achieved.

The Government response sets out our consideration of the responses to the public consultation held from July to October 2013. The Government response summarises stakeholder responses to each of the consultation questions, and sets out the Government’s policy decisions, with reasoning.

We are also publishing a guide to ESOS for scheme participants, and the ESOS impact assessment. This demonstrates that ESOS has real potential to enhance economic growth and energy security in the UK, and to reduce our carbon emissions through improved energy efficiency—saving 3 TWh per year.

Afghanistan Monthly Progress Report

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 38th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.

The Afghan Independent Election Commission confirmed that none of the presidential candidates secured over 50% of votes needed to win the election in the first round. Abdullah Abdullah was in the lead with 45% of the vote, followed by Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai with 31.6%. There were 6.6 million valid votes in the presidential election, 2 million more than the 2009 election, a display of popular support for the democratic process. Approximately 36% of voters were women. The second round was scheduled for 14 June.

The Afghan Parliament passed by majority vote the presidential decree amending article 26 of the criminal procedure code. This amends the controversial wording of the original articles that legally prevented relatives from testifying in cases involving their own family members.

12 May marked the beginning of the fighting season. While there was a spike in violence and ANSF casualties on this date, this was expected and consistent with levels seen in previous fighting seasons. There were also two selection days for the first female blook (platoon) which selected 33 candidates to start in June 14, demonstrating the ANSF’s commitment to increase the role of women in the security sector.

The Helmand redeployment continued with the closure of observation post Sterga 2 on 10 May. Following the closure, conventional UK forces in Helmand are now based only in Camp Bastion.

President Obama announced planned US post-2014 force levels. 9,800 US personnel will remain deployed in a regional model in 2015, reducing to 5,500 in Kabul by the end of 2015. A “normalised” embassy-based mission supported by up to 1,000 troops will be in operation by the end of 2016, providing a bilateral security agreement is concluded satisfactorily.

I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the gov.uk website: www.gov.uk/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports

EU-Georgia Association Agreement

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measures:

Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application, of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part.

Council decision on the conclusion of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part.

The EU-Georgia association agreement constitutes a reform agenda for Georgia, based around a comprehensive programme to more closely align their legislation to EU norms, focusing on support to core reforms including economic recovery and growth, governance and co-operation in a wide range of sectors. This will help to ensure a stable and prosperous region, which is in the UK’s national interest.

The Council decisions approving the EU’s signature and conclusion of the EU-Georgia association agreement give approval to the EU to sign and conclude provisions covered by title V of the TFEU, in particular, in respect of provisions related to the temporary presence of natural persons for business—mode 4—and to the readmission of persons. The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-in has been triggered as a result. The Government have decided that it is in the UK’s best interests to opt in to these Council decisions.

When making this decision, the Government took into consideration that the UK already participates in the existing readmission agreement between the EU and Georgia and as such it is appropriate that we now opt in to the new provisions which require the parties to ensure the full implementation of that agreement.

The mode 4 provisions are in line with the EU’s Doha round offer to the World Trade Organisation and are subject to rigorous safeguards, including minimum skills levels.

EU-Moldova Association Agreement

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measures:

Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application, of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part.

Council decision on the conclusion of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part.

The EU-Moldova association agreement constitutes a reform agenda for Moldova, based around a comprehensive programme to more closely align their legislation to EU norms, focusing on support to core reforms including economic recovery and growth, governance and co-operation in a wide range of sectors. This will help to ensure a stable and prosperous region on the edge of the European Union, which is in the UK’s national interest.

The Council decisions approving the EU’s signature and conclusion of the EU-Moldova association agreement give approval to the EU to sign and conclude provisions covered by title V of the TFEU, in particular, in respect of provisions related to the temporary presence of natural persons for business—mode 4—and to the readmission of persons. The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-in has been triggered as a result. The Government have decided that it is in the UK’s best interests to opt in to these Council decisions.

When making this decision, the Government took into consideration that the UK already participates in the existing readmission agreement between the EU and Moldova and as such it is appropriate that we now opt in to the new provisions which require the parties to ensure the full implementation of that agreement.

The mode 4 provisions are in line with the EU’s Doha round offer to the World Trade Organisation and are subject to rigorous safeguards, including minimum skills levels.

EU-Ukraine Association Agreement

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measure:

Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application, of the association agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, as regards titles III, IV, V, VI and VII of the agreement as well as the related annexes and protocols.

On 17 October 2013, Official Report, column 66WS, I informed the House that we had opted in to a previous version of this Council decision. In November 2013 former President Yanukovych decided not to pursue signature of the association agreement. This decision resulted in unrest in Ukraine, and in February 2014 a new interim President was appointed. The political titles of the agreement were signed at a European Council on 21 March 2014. That part of the agreement did not include provisions covered by title V of the TFEU and therefore did not trigger the UK’s JHA opt-in. Following successful presidential elections in May 2014, President Poroshenko confirmed his intention to sign the association agreement. The above new decision has since been brought forward to enable signature of the remaining titles of the agreement.

The EU-Ukraine association agreement constitutes a reform agenda for Ukraine, based around a comprehensive programme to align their legislation more closely to EU norms, focusing on support to core reforms including economic recovery and growth, governance and co- operation in a wide range of sectors. This will help to ensure a stable and prosperous region on the edge of the European Union, which is in the UK’s national interest.

The Council decisions approving the EU’s signature and conclusion of the EU-Ukraine association agreement give approval to the EU to sign and conclude provisions covered by title V of the TFEU, in particular, in respect of provisions related to the temporary presence of natural persons for business—mode 4—and to the readmission of persons. The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-in has been triggered as a result. The Government have decided that it is in the UK’s best interests to opt in to these Council decisions.

When making this decision, the Government took into consideration that the UK already participates in the existing readmission agreement between the EU and Ukraine and as such it is appropriate that we now opt in to the new provisions which require the parties to ensure the full implementation of that agreement.

The mode 4 provisions are in line with the EU’s Doha round offer to the World Trade Organisation and are subject to rigorous safeguards, including minimum skills levels.

Standardised Tobacco Packaging

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

The Government have today published the “Consultation on the introduction of regulations for standardised packaging of tobacco products”. This consultation is being conducted on a UK-wide basis.

In November 2013, the Department of Health commissioned Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review of whether the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco is likely to have an effect on public health, in particular in relation to children. The report of the Chantler review, which was published in April 2014, concluded that if standardised packaging was introduced, it would have a positive impact on public health.

Before reaching a decision on whether to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products, we are holding a final, short consultation. This consultation will run for six weeks until 7 August. So that our decision on whether to introduce standardised packaging is properly and fully informed, the consultation includes a set of draft regulations so that it is clear how such a policy would work in practice. The draft regulations set out proposed requirements for the packaging of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, and requirements for the appearance of individual cigarettes, should standardised packaging be introduced.

In the consultation that has been published today, we ask, in particular, for views on anything new since the last full public consultation on standardised packaging that we ran in 2012 that is relevant to the development of this policy, including evidence relating to the wider implications of introducing standardised packaging. In July 2012, we published the “Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products”. The report of the 2012 consultation was published in July 2013.

The consultation on the introduction of regulations for standardised packaging of tobacco products has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

I encourage any person or organisation with an interest in standardised packaging of tobacco products to engage with the consultation.

We have also today published on the web the detailed responses that were received to the 2012 consultation. These can be seen at:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products

Health Council

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 June 2014. Health issues were discussed on 20 June and the United Kingdom was represented at the meeting by the UK deputy permanent representative to the EU.

The presidency provided a progress report on the medical devices regulations and asked member states for an exchange of views on a compromise text on the designation of notified bodies, post-market surveillance and the tasks allocated to the medical devices co-ordinating group. Member states provided a range of opinions on these questions and the presidency and Commission thanked member states for their views.

The Council adopted Council conclusions on the economic crisis and health care, and on nutrition and physical activity. Italy and Romania tabled a joint declaration, expressing concern with the call upon the Commission to implement nutrient profiles.

Under any other business, France asked member states to work together to respond to the high price of a new hepatitis C medicine. Ireland briefly informed delegations of their plans to introduce standardised packaging of tobacco products, should the Bill successfully pass through their Parliament.

Most member states, including the UK, signed an agreement to be able to jointly procure vaccines in the future, if we choose to exercise this.

Italy presented their broad priorities for their presidency which begins on 1 July 2014. These cover a range of areas including dementia and anti-microbial resistance (AMR).

Liverpool Care Pathway

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

The Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People has today published details of the approach to secure high-quality, personalised care for everyone in the last few days and hours of life in England.

Today’s publication by the alliance of 21 organisations follows the report by the independent review that I commissioned to consider the Liverpool care pathway (LCP). The review panel made 44 recommendations, including that the LCP should be phased out over the succeeding six to 12 months. As I announced on 15 July 2013, the Government accepted that recommendation. I said that the Government would consider fully the recommendations of the review and work with the organisations to which the panel addressed its recommendations, other stakeholders and charities to inform a full system-wide response to the review’s recommendations. That response, which includes details of the new approach, is published today.

The work that has been done goes beyond responding to each of the recommendations. The leadership alliance has developed five priorities for care of the dying person. These set out, for dying people, their families, health and care staff and others, what should happen when someone is thought to be close to dying.

The priorities for care provide that:

the possibility that a person may die within the next days and hours should be recognised and communicated clearly, decisions about care made in accordance with the person’s needs and wishes, and these decisions reviewed and revised regularly; sensitive communication should take place between staff and the person who is dying and those people who are important to the dying person;

the dying person, and those identified as important to them, should be involved in decisions about treatment and care;

the people important to the dying person should be listened to and their needs respected; and

care should be compassionate and reflect a care plan for the individual dying person.

The response includes further details of the priorities, as well as a statement of the duties and responsibilities of health and care staff to deliver the priorities, and implementation guidance for service providers and commissioners. The 21 organisations have also published a collective statement, as well as individual statements, of the key actions they will take to implement the priorities. These include that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) will be developing new clinical guidelines on the care of the dying adult and end-of-life care for children. These guidelines will inform the development of a quality standard for end-of-life care for children and an update of NICE’S quality standard on end-of-life care for adults. From October 2014, Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections will incorporate the priorities as part of inspection of end of life care.

Taking account of the fact that one of the panel’s recommendations was in two parts, the organisations have accepted 28 of its recommendations in full and 12 in principle or in part. There are three that have not been accepted at this stage or that are still being considered. Two recommendations have not been accepted. NHS England and Health Education England will not promote the use of prognostic tools in relation to dying. The approach in the priorities for care does not, unlike the LCP, rely on a diagnosis of dying. The priorities apply

“when it is thought that a person may die within the next few days and hours”

and will support good care irrespective of whether someone is actually dying.

Rather than issue guidance to nurses on caring for people at the end of life, the Nursing and Midwifery Council will instead incorporate the principles behind the priorities into the revised NMC code: standards of conduct, performance and ethics, a draft version of which is currently out for consultation. It has also published its standards for competence as a separate stand-alone document.

The review panel found evidence of both good and poor care given to people in the last few days and hours of life. Use of the LCP was not found to be synonymous with poor care. The panel said that whilst in some circumstances, the LCP had supported the delivery of good care, it was not always applied properly. Where it was used as a generic protocol, the LCP ran the risk of becoming process-driven.

As I made clear in my statement of 15 July 2013, everyone who uses health and care services has the right to be treated with respect, dignity and compassion by staff with the skills and time to care for them properly, and any variation in standards of care is not acceptable. The priorities for care make it clear that where someone is thought to be in the last few days and hours of life, there must be sensitive communication, involvement in decision making and consideration of the needs of those who matter most to the dying person.

Key national organisations in the health and care system have committed to a co-ordinated programme of actions to take forward the priorities for care. This includes providing relevant education and training, as well as regulatory and inspection action. There is no excuse for individual organisations and health and care staff to deliver anything less than high-quality care for people in the last few days and hours of life, as set out in the five priorities.

The Government will continue to take a close interest in this area and intend to publish a report, around July 2015, two years on from the review panel’s report, assessing how national organisations have implemented the commitments they have set out today. The independent review panel chaired by Baroness Neuberger will continue to have a role, providing independent advice to Ministers about implementation of the commitments in the system-wide response. Their views will inform the report that the Government intend to publish.

I am grateful to members of the panel for agreeing to continue in this role, as well as for their wider commitment to ensuring high quality, compassionate care for everyone in the last few days and hours of life.

One chance to get it right, which incorporates the system-wide response to the report of the independent panel on the LCP, has been placed in the Library, along with the commitment statements made by national organisations. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Al-Muhajiroun

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

We have today laid an order under section 3(6) of the Terrorism Act 2000 which, with effect from tomorrow, will specify “Need4Khilafah”, “the Shariah Project” and “the Islamic Dawah Association” as aliases of the proscribed organisation known as al-Ghurabaa, the Saved Sect, al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK. This organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply operating under alternative names.

The effect of this order is that being a member of or supporting any group operating under these names will be a criminal offence as to do so will amount to being a member of or supporting al-Ghurabaa, contrary to sections 11 and 12 of the Terrorism Act.

Detention of Persons with Statutorily Extended Leave

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

A removal decision under section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (the 2006 Act) may be made in relation to any person whose leave is statutorily extended leave by virtue of either:

section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (the 1971 Act)—where the migrant has made an in-time application and a decision on the application is pending or an appeal against refusal has not yet been exhausted; or

section 3D of the 1971 Act—where leave has been revoked or curtailed with immediate effect and any appeal against that decision has not yet been exhausted.

The previous Government stated that migrants who had received a removal decision under section 47 of the 2006 Act could not be subject to reporting conditions or detention while they had continuing leave pending the outcome of an appeal, 29 March 2006, Official Report, column 908. In fact, schedule 2 of the 1971 Act allows their detention, and in circumstances where leave has been abused this may be appropriate.

Curtailment with immediate effect is used where the migrant has failed to comply with the conditions of their leave, or their character, conduct or associations make it undesirable to allow them to remain in the UK—for example, there is reliable evidence that they have facilitated or entered into a sham marriage or civil partnership to gain an immigration advantage. Sham marriage is known to be a significant and increasing threat to UK immigration control.

To allow robust and proportionate enforcement action against individuals who abuse the immigration system, we are changing policy in regard of persons who have statutorily extended leave under section 3D of the 1971 Act. Migrants whose leave has been revoked or curtailed with immediate effect will be liable to be detained or to report to the Home Office (depending on the individual circumstances of the case) pending their removal from the UK.

The Home Office will continue not to detain persons whose leave is extended by virtue of section 3C of the 1971 Act. In these cases, migrants have sought to regularise their stay before their leave expired and should not be subject to enforcement action before their application is finally determined. Similarly, a person whose leave is curtailed for reasons outside their control (for example, the college at which they were studying has closed down) would normally be left with some leave remaining, in order to let them find alternative provision. A removal decision would not be made with the curtailment decision and they would be unaffected by this policy change.

National Fraud Authority

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

The National Fraud Authority annual report and accounts 2013-14 has been laid before the House today and published. Copies will be available from the Vote Office.

Immigration Removals (New Restraint System)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing that I have formally approved a new restraint system for safely managing people being escorted during immigration removals.

This fulfils a commitment by this Government to provide training for escort staff that reflects the environment they work in, both in-country and overseas. The bespoke training is tailored to the experience and behaviour of detainees and staff in immigration removals and provides practical tools to de-escalate situations and minimise the use of restraint.

The new system has been assessed by the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management, chaired by Stephen Shaw. The panel was established to provide support to the National Offender Management Service in the design of the new training package to provide independent advice on the quality and safety of the new package, in particular on the use of restraint techniques.

The report by the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management is welcomed by the Government. The report recognises the balance to be struck between treating detainees with respect and minimising the need for restraint, with our responsibility to enforce immigration law, which sometimes requires the use of physical intervention.

After careful consideration of the panel’s comprehensive assessment of the quality and safety of the new system, the Government have accepted all of its recommendations.

The new training for overseas and in-country escort staff will begin implementation on 28 July 2014.

I am placing a copy of the full report of the independent advisory panel for non-compliance management and the Government’s response to the report in the Library of the House. A redacted version of the manual for escorting safely and supporting guidance will be published in due course.

Potential Miscarriages of Justice

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

When I made my statement to the House on 6 March 2014, announcing the findings of the Stephen Lawrence independent review by Mark Ellison QC, I said that:

“In identifying the possibility that SDS secrecy may have caused miscarriages of justice, Mark Ellison recommends a further review to identify the specific cases affected. I have accepted that recommendation and Mark Ellison will lead the work, working with the CPS and reporting to the Attorney-General. That will mean that proper consideration can be given to those cases and to any implications that may arise. In doing that work, Mark Ellison and the CPS will be provided with whatever access they judge necessary to relevant documentary evidence”—[Official Report, 6 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 1063.]

Mr Ellison, the Attorney-General and I have now agreed his terms of reference. Mr Ellison will continue to be supported by Alison Morgan, who was Mr Ellison’s junior counsel during the Stephen Lawrence independent review. The terms of reference are:

“Mark Ellison QC will co-ordinate a multi-agency review, reporting to the Attorney-General, to assess the possible impact upon the safety of convictions in England and Wales where relevant undercover police activity was not properly revealed to the prosecutor and considered at the time of trial. Nothing in these terms of reference affects the statutory responsibilities of the various agencies and office-holders working with the review.

The review will initially focus on the undercover police activity of the MPS’s Special Demonstration Squad and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) which, while not an MPS resource, worked to similar objectives. The review will then assess whether its scope may need to be broadened to cover other undercover police activity.

The review will seek to ensure, by working co-operatively with the Home Office, Operation Herne (on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)), other police forces, CPS, Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and any other relevant agencies, that the following tasks are carried out:

1. Establish the relevant document retention and destruction policies adopted within the relevant organisations;

2. Identify the extent of surviving police, prosecution and court case files;

3. Establish the nature of undercover policing undertaken and the potential for undercover police activity to have been relevant to a prosecution but unrevealed to the appropriate authority;

4. Identify, using both available records and other reasonable means, any convictions where it appears there was relevant undisclosed and unrevealed undercover police activity capable of impacting adversely on the safety of the conviction;

5. Ensure that any cases falling in 4 above, where it appears the safety of a conviction may have been adversely affected, are referred to the appropriate authority for evaluation and appropriate action;

6. Ensure that any cases falling in 4 above are reviewed to establish the rationale for non-revelation and to establish the extent to which the MPS and the Home Office were aware and identify the action taken as a result; and

7. Agree a protocol with the MPS (and all other police forces subsequently identified), the CPS, the CCRC and any other relevant agencies regarding the tasks that each will undertake; the availability and handling of material; and other issues as necessary.

Mark Ellison QC will aim to report the review’s findings in writing on the above to the Attorney-General by 31 March 2015”.

The review has already begun its preliminary work. Where the review identifies a potential miscarriage of justice, the case will be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for its consideration of whether the case should be referred to the appellate courts. At the conclusion of the process, the review will produce a report to the Attorney-General, which he will publish. That report will not include the details of the individuals whose cases have been examined, as to do so could prejudice any subsequent appeal proceedings or retrials.

I am grateful to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and to Chief Constable Creedon for the support they have offered to the review. I know that the Metropolitan Police Service will co-operate fully with the review team.

Parliamentary Oral Question (Correction)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I am taking this opportunity to provide a corrected answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on 5 March 2014, Official Report, column 877. The hon. Member asked:

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the UK’s programme of support for Syrian refugees. [902826]

On the basis of the World Food Programme’s final figures for 2013, the answer to this question is:



The UK has allocated £265 million to support refugees in countries neighbouring Syria, providing approximately 1.3 million monthly food packages last year, 71,000 medical consultations, and an improved water supply for more than 40,000people. We are working closely with Governments, the UN and others to ensure that the overall international response builds resilience and is implemented effectively.

Hallett Inquiry

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I would like to announce that the report of the Hallett inquiry will be published on 17 July. On that day, I will make a further statement to this House and lay the report in both Houses.

As the person responsible for publication of the Hallett report once it is delivered to me, I have a duty to act in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights. To fulfil this duty, I need to take steps to satisfy myself that publication of the report will not breach article 2 of the convention by putting the lives or safety of individuals at risk. These obligations were outlined in detail in the written statement I made on 31 October 2012, Official Report, column 18WS, regarding the release of the de Silva review. The same duties apply to me in relation to the Hallett report.

In order to comply with these duties, prior to publication the report has to be checked by a team of legal advisers and officials in relation to human rights and national security matters. This is in line with the approach used for the Bloody Sunday, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson inquiries, and the de Silva review.

The report is being prepared for publication by Lady Justice Hallett’s team. I will see the final report for the first time on 16 July, 24 hours before publication. As with the publication of previous reports, I intend to grant advance sight to those who Lady Justice Hallett has recommended as being interested parties.

Intelligence Services Commissioner (Annual Report)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the latest annual report from the Intelligence Services Commissioner. The right hon. Sir Mark Waller was appointed by me to keep under review the exercise by the Secretaries of State of their powers to issue warrants and authorisations to enable the security and intelligence agencies to carry out their vital functions. The commissioner also uses his position to check the lawful use of the powers and duties imposed on the intelligence services and the Ministry of Defence by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

The commissioner’s report provides a complete summary of the inspection regime that he has undertaken. It shows that the agencies, Ministry of Defence personnel, civil servants and Secretaries of State understand their responsibilities and comply with the law. Through his inspection process and as a result of self-reporting by the relevant agencies, Sir Mark’s report sets out a number of instances in which human error has resulted in regrettable administrative errors. In these instances the commissioner has satisfied himself that these errors were not deliberate and has suggested changes to ensure that they are not repeated.

The commissioner has also made available to me a confidential annex to his main report, which as per section 60(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; Sir Mark and I have agreed it would not be in the public interest to publish. However, as the commissioner makes clear, the findings in the confidential annex do not detract or change the conclusions that he reaches in his main report.

The intelligence agencies’ work is vital to protect the UK’s national security. We have a robust legislative framework and strong system of oversight to ensure that the agencies operate within the law and that their actions are in accordance with our legal obligations. Sir Mark’s role, as set out in his annual report, is an important part of that system of oversight. I am pleased that this annual report provides more detail than ever before of how his oversight operates. It provides an independent and informed account of the agencies’ compliance with the law and the high ethical standards their staff follow. I am grateful to Sir Mark for his scrutiny and oversight and welcome his conclusion that the public should have confidence that the agencies act within the law.

House of Lords (Appointments)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for recommending non-party political appointments to the House of Lords. In line with the practice of the previous Administration, I continue to nominate direct to Her Majesty the Queen a limited number of candidates for crossbench peerages, based on their public service. I am extending the criteria for these recommendations to ensure they can properly encompass a range of individuals with a proven track record of public service, not solely public servants on retirement. The nominations will continue to be vetted by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The number of appointments covered under this arrangement will remain unchanged at a maximum often in any one Parliament.

HS2 Safeguarding Directions

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I can today inform the House that under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, I have issued updated and revised safeguarding directions to local planning authorities along the London to west midlands HS2 route. These adjust the previous directions issued in October 2013 to more closely match the description of the scheme set out in the HS2 hybrid Bill and accompanying environmental statement currently before the House.

Safeguarding directions aim to ensure that land which has been earmarked for major infrastructure projects is protected from conflicting developments before construction starts. They also enable many of those who own property in the safeguarded area to serve a blight notice and request that the Government purchase their property under the terms of the compensation code.

As the Government are no longer planning on building a link between HS1 and HS2 at the London end of the railway, the relevant land has also been removed from safeguarding.

HS2 Ltd is writing to all known property and landowners within the relevant areas to notify them of the revised directions, and their effect.

Safeguarding directions also trigger statutory blight procedures under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Owner-occupiers of properties within the safeguarded area who wish to move may apply to sell their property to the Government by serving a blight notice. If they meet the relevant criteria they can expect to receive the “un-blighted” open market value of their home, a home loss payment of 10% of the value of their home—up to £47,000—and reasonable moving costs such as legal fees, and stamp duty on a replacement property.

As I announced on 9 April, Official Report, column 19WS, the HS2 express purchase scheme now applies in the surface safeguarded area. The scheme provides eligible property owners with the same compensation entitlement, whether or not their property is required for the scheme. Where an area of land has been removed from the safeguarded area by these new safeguarding directions, the express purchase scheme will remain available to owners of properties in that area—the extended home owner protection zone—for five years. This does not apply to properties along the formerly proposed link between HS1 and HS2, which will no longer be close to the high-speed railway. Full information and maps describing the new directions, as well as guidance and application forms for express purchase and other property compensation schemes, are available at, www.hs2.org.uk or by phoning the HS2 Ltd public enquiries line on 020 7944 4908.

Child Poverty Strategy 2014-17

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Schools, I will publish the Government’s child poverty strategy 2014-17. At the end of this Parliament, as at the start, the coalition Government are committed to ending child poverty by 2020, transforming the lives of the most vulnerable in our society.

Despite the tough economic climate, we are making progress. With employment at a record high, up by nearly 1.7 million since 2010, there are now 290,000 fewer children in workless households. Poor children are doing better than ever at school, with the proportion of children on free school meals getting good GCSEs, including English and maths, having increased from 31% in 2010 to 38% in 2013. This is the kind of lasting life change that makes a real difference to children’s outcomes.

Based on an in-depth evidence review, today’s strategy sets out the actions we will take to build on this momentum, restating our commitment to tackle poverty at its source.

We will help families into work and to increase their earnings; support living standards through decreasing costs for low-income families; and prevent poor children becoming poor adults through raising their educational attainment. In doing so, we can break the cycle of disadvantage, offering families security and stability for the future.

To achieve this end, our strategy calls for action from employers, the devolved Administrations, local areas and the voluntary and community sector. All must play their part, for we know that central Government action alone cannot end child poverty.

Alongside the strategy, it is our firm belief that we need a revised set of child poverty measures which underline our commitment to ending child poverty, but better reflect the evidence about its underlying causes and where we need to target action most.

We are not yet in a position to put these forward. In the meantime, the Child Poverty Act 2010 requires us to set a persistent child poverty target through affirmative regulations by December 2014. As we will not have put forward new measures by then, the Government remain committed to meeting their existing obligations under the Act. We are therefore consulting on a persistent child poverty target based on the definition set out in the Act and at a level of less than 7% by 2020, which is consistent with existing statutory child poverty targets.

Defined Ambition Pensions

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am pleased to confirm that the Government have published their response to the consultation “Reshaping workplace pensions for future generations”. Later today, we shall publish independent research on defined ambition—or shared risk—pensions, commissioned by DWP, and we intend to introduce the Pension Schemes Bill 2014.

The Bill provides for a new legislative framework for defined ambition pensions that enable employers and their workers to share risks, providing more certainty for savers and controlling costs for employers.

The Bill will also encourage “collective schemes”, which are popular in many countries around the world as the pooled risks can make pension outcomes more stable.

The time is right for a new regulatory framework for future private pension provision; we know that consumers value greater certainty in pensions and over a quarter of employers are interested in offering a pension involving risk sharing.

I shall place a copy of the delegated powers memorandum and impact assessment in the Libraries of both Houses along with a list of the relevant older papers.

Copies of the impact assessment and the delegated powers memorandum will be available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office and on the gov.uk website later today.

Health and Safety Executive (Triennial Review)

Thursday 26th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

On 9 January 2014, I made a written statement to Parliament—Official Report, column 19WS—announcing the publication of the independent report of Martin Temple on the triennial review of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). I am pleased to announce that later today the Government response to the triennial review of HSE will be published.

HSE is an Executive non-departmental public body (NDPB). It is the national, independent regulator for work-related safety and health. Its mission is the prevention of death, injury and ill-health to those at work and those affected by work activities.

I am very grateful to Mr Temple for producing such a thorough independent report, which has been widely welcomed. I support the majority of his recommendations. Today’s Government response explains the actions we will take on all the recommendations and updates on progress made so far in implementing them, where appropriate.

In some areas, as set out in the Government response, I want to go further to reform HSE to ensure that it delivers value for money to the taxpayer, while ensuring safety for the nation. Good health and safety is vital to good business in a growing UK economy. There is international interest in learning from and adopting Britain’s health and safety regulatory system. Realising HSE’s potential as a world leader in providing health and safety advice will create a new income stream for Government as well as benefiting UK businesses who already work within this regulatory framework.

I will place a copy of the Government response to the triennial review of HSE in the House Library later today.