House of Commons

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

Thursday 23 October 2014

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to relieve congestion on roads.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to relieve congestion on roads.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

The Government have an ambitious strategy for tackling congestion and improving performance on our roads, as I think the whole House would acknowledge. This autumn we will set out our plans for a road investment strategy, with £24 billion to be spent on strategic roads up to 2021. For local roads, £7.4 billion will be spent in the next Parliament, and £1.5 billion funding from the local growth fund will bring forward vital schemes.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

My right hon. Friend may well have an ambitious strategy, but it does not go as far as Mid Sussex. Is he aware that particularly in the towns of Haywards Heath and East Grinstead there have been frankly intolerable delays owing to works by the utilities? I want him to take a much, much tougher line with the utilities on how they handle traffic management so that they cease destroying the trading opportunities of towns that are trying to make much better of themselves.

[Mr Hayes]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I was in Sussex only last week looking at these very matters. There is no end to my strategic ambitions— geographically or in any other way. He is absolutely right that we need to take a tough line in ensuring that schemes do not have undesirable or unintended consequences. I will certainly look very closely at the circumstances he describes, and he can be absolutely certain of my toughness.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The pinch point fund is an excellent and cost-effective way of assisting with schemes such as the Blackheath lane roundabout in my constituency, and I urge my right hon. Friend to continue with it. However, there are even cheaper ways of reducing congestion, such as traffic light re-phasing and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said, proper co-ordination of road works. Will the Minister also consider requiring local highway authorities to publish weekly information on delays caused by congestion in their areas in order to give them an incentive to do something about it and to give drivers the information they need to plan their journeys?

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend will know that Staffordshire has been provided with local pinch point funding of £4.8 million to support three schemes: the Beacon business park growth point in Stafford, which was completed on 20 June 2014; the A50 to Alton growth corridor, which is due to be completed in March 2016; and the Gungate north-south link road in Tamworth, which is due for completion in March 2015. His idea of weekly reports is innovative and interesting, and I am more than happy to take it back to the Department. Once again, he has shown that he brings to this House fresh thinking that is most welcome.

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

Last week we had an excellent debate in the House on cycling. It was so good, in fact, that the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said he was going to take up cycling, which we look forward to seeing. One of the benefits of cycling is that for every driver who moves on to a cycle, less road space is taken up. How much of the £100 million that the Minister has announced for new roads will benefit cycling?

[Mr Hayes]

It is a hallmark of this Government that we have taken cycling as seriously as we have, and that is in no small measure due to the work of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). All new road schemes must take account of cycling provision, and, although I am never unnecessarily partisan in this Chamber, as you know, Mr Speaker, I am not sure that previous Governments could have claimed that.

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

I welcome the Minister to his role. Congestion is, as we have heard, all too often made worse by the poor state of local roads. The Local Government Association has warned of a road maintenance “time bomb”. The Minister may think that everything is going swimmingly well, with funding competitions, which pre-date him, that rob Peter to pay Paul, but when the Public Accounts Committee says that it is

“very frustrating that the Department for Transport still has not got a grip on how it funds road maintenance”,

one might think that he would listen, so why will he not?

[Mr Hayes]

I always take that kind of analysis and scrutiny seriously. This Government are going to resurface 80% of roads, because we acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point about the effect of road condition on congestion. This Government are taking a more strategic approach, putting their money where their mouth is and listening to the kinds of arguments the hon. Gentleman has amplified.

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

2. What assessment he has made of the merits of granting provisional licences for small motorbikes and scooters.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

No formal assessment has been made of the merits of granting provisional driving licences for small motorbikes and scooters. The minimum age at which a motorist can apply for a provisional licence to ride mopeds is 16. From the age of 17, motorists can apply for a provisional licence to ride small motorcycles with an engine size of up to 125 cc.

[Mr Sheerman]

I tabled that question because I nearly killed a young motorcyclist two weeks ago. He was a Domino’s Pizza delivery boy and it was obvious that he was totally inexperienced and should not have been employed delivering around London. Motorcycle and scooter users account for 20% of fatalities on our roads, yet they represent only 1% of the traffic in our country. Something significant is happening. Can we do something about it?

[Claire Perry]

May I commend the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing commitment to road safety? It started many years ago and he has done an amazing job. He will be as pleased as I am that, overall, road deaths this year are at their lowest level since 1926. Since the regime of testing and compulsory basic training was introduced in 1990, deaths and fatalities among users of small and medium-sized motorbikes have fallen by up to 60%, so the regime is fit for purpose and we are always looking to make our roads even safer.

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

3. What recent discussions he has had with stakeholders in the aviation industry on the use of flight paths over conflict zones.

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

The Department keeps in close contact with UK carriers about the whole range of threats to aviation, including the risks of flying over conflict zones. The Secretary of State recently met the secretary general of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and discussed this very issue.

[Mr Bain]

Our thoughts remain very strongly with the families and friends of those who died in the terrible disaster that affected flight MH17. Since then, conditions have become even more dangerous, particularly in relation to the middle east. What are the Government doing, through the ICAO, to ensure that information about international flights is shared between domestic countries?

[Mr Goodwill]

May I extend the Government’s condolences to the families of the 283 passengers and 15 crew, including 10 British citizens, who were killed? Indeed, at the European Council in Luxembourg, we had the opportunity to express condolences to my Dutch counterpart; a very large number of the casualties came from his country. The ICAO has set up a taskforce to look at the provision of over-flights in conflict zones, and the UK is participating actively in that work.

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

May I associate myself with the Minister’s condolences to the families, not least our own UK citizens? After MH17 was shot down, I wrote to the Minister in August to ask how the Government would ensure that all airlines had equal access to recommendations based on authoritative intelligence about safety over specific conflict zones. I also asked him to reconsider his reserved powers so that passengers, pilots and airline staff in the UK could have confidence in the process. His reply was that he was looking into it. After eight weeks in which conflicts in Iraq and Syria have intensified those concerns, what changes has he made?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have already explained that work is being undertaken at an international level. Indeed, the Secretary of State has power to direct airlines not to fly over particular locations and the independent Civil Aviation Authority can issue a notice to airmen—a NOTAM—instructing pilots not to fly over those areas. Ultimately, it is up to the airline and the captain to take the decision, based on the best available information they have.

[Mr Speaker]

We are pleased to see the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) sprinting into the Chamber.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

4. What recent estimate he has made of the change in the number of rail passenger journeys in each of the last three years.

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

I am proud that rail in this country is doing extremely well. Privatisation has seen passenger numbers more than double to over 1.6 billion last year. Innovation in the private sector has led to more seats, faster journey times and brighter station environments, which is why there have been an extra 233 million journeys between 2011 and 2014, despite economic conditions.

[Richard Graham]

The growth in the number of passengers on the railways is encouraging, particularly at Gloucester station, where figures have risen considerably higher than the national average. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the train companies have to play their part in providing extra capacity and that the 2006 decision by Arriva cross-country services to halve the number of trains stopping at Gloucester station has not helped us to grow the number of railway passengers in a sustainable way? Does he agree that that should change when the renegotiations happen?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am always pleased to listen to the representations made by my hon. Friend to get more and better services for his constituency and the people who live in and around Gloucester. I understand the points he makes, but we have seen a massive increase in rail use. The great difference from when I was in the Department 25 years ago is that rail was seen then as yesterday’s industry. Everywhere I go now, people are lobbying for extra services, which I think privatisation has brought about.

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

It is good to see such expansion in the use of rail, but what action will the Secretary of State take to relieve the severe overcrowding on some routes caused by the lack of both electric and diesel trains? Is he concerned about the safety threat posed by the continuation of the Pacer trains?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As Secretary of State for Transport I have seen franchises being told to convert first class carriages to standard class carriages so that more people can travel. I think I am the first Secretary of State to do that. It was not done by any previous Labour Secretary of State, so I am very pleased about that. On Pacers, I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. We must look for better services for those people who are currently served by Pacers, possibly by improving and redesigning the Pacers, which some of the companies are looking at. It is certainly something that I am interested in.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the record that he set out to our hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). If he looks at the restarted franchise, which sees more passengers being put right at the heart of the process, more towns likely to come on to the network, and more seats available, does he agree that far from being yesterday’s industry, this is likely to be the industry of tomorrow and these trains are likely to accelerate?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend for all the work he did in improving and getting franchises back on the road after the difficulty that we inherited when we first entered the Department two years ago. He made a great contribution to that. I completely agree with him. As I said, all the meetings I have with various local authority leaders now are about increasing capacity and providing more and better services. The train operating companies and the rolling stock leasing companies all have roles to play in doing that.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My constituents frequently play “sardines” on Northern Rail trains, often with passengers left at stations. Was the massive increase of up to 162% in fares a perverse way of reducing demand?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I said, it is important that we provide that extra capacity. My only regret is that the previous Government did not order enough rolling stock for us to be able to do that. We are putting that right.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there could be a further boost to rail passengers if we had faster journeys on the west Anglia main line? Will he assure me that improvements to that line will not slip down the priority list?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I assure my right hon. Friend of that. Not only has he made that case to me in person on a number of occasions, but when I visited his constituency he pointed out the need for those improvements.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friends have already said, the north has some of the most overcrowded trains in the country, and Ministers have hit passengers with stealth fare rises of up to 162%. The Department said that this will

“help reduce crowding on evening services.”

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is his official policy to price people off the railways?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will take no lectures from Labour about pricing people off the railways. This Government last year capped fares at inflation and have done so this year. We are the first Government to do so—the previous Government never did. The hon. Lady talks about the problem of serving northern cities and we fully accept that there are a number of problems. That is why the Chancellor has led on the question of how we improve connections between northern cities. We have to catch up after 13 years of neglect.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

5. What progress he has made on improvements to the A417 and A419 at Nettleton Bottom and Crickley Hill; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

The Highways Agency is preparing a route strategy for the midlands to Wales and Gloucestershire. This includes the A417 at Nettleton Bottom and Crickley Hill, which is part of the section of the road identified as a key challenge on the route. Current options are being assessed, including major improvements, to produce an indicative business case as the basis on which to prioritise investment from 2015. I will press the Highways Agency to provide its assessments so that I can make decisions on this as soon as possible.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that response. He will be aware that the Secretary of State recently visited the area called “the missing link” and saw for himself the difficulties and dangers of that road. I know that my right hon. Friend is a very caring and a very competent Minister, and he will be very saddened indeed by the news of yet another death on that road less than two weeks ago. Will he therefore do everything in his power to bring about a solution for this congested and very dangerous stretch of road?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, I had indeed heard about that fatality, and I obviously offer my commiserations and condolences to all concerned. My hon. Friend has been consistent in this campaign. In July, he asked the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), a very similar question. I know that he has prioritised improvements to the road. I will look closely at the matter again, and we will do our very best for him.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No. I am not going to call the right hon. Gentleman because Nettleton Bottom and Crickley Hill are a very long way from Newcastle. We will hear from him later, I feel sure.

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

Nettleton Bottom happens to be in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and in mine. May I therefore reinforce what my hon. Friend has so adroitly put to the Minister? The recent fatality—I send my sympathy to the family—is the eighth since this time last year. This road is in desperate need of refurbishment.

[Mr Hayes]

I do understand that the death toll on this road is continuing to rise, and I also understand the delays that travellers are enduring as a result of congestion. I know that my hon. Friend has previously made this case, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). The Department is conscious of that and of the need to do more across a whole range of roads, but he can be assured that the powerful case they have both made will not fall on deaf ears.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

7. How many of the shortlisted bidders for the inter-city east coast franchise are wholly or partly foreign-owned.

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

Three bidding companies are taking part in the competition for the inter-city east coast franchise, one of which is partly foreign-owned.

[Sheila Gilmore]

When I last asked the Transport Secretary about this issue on 8 May, he said that the reason Directly Operated Railways would be at a disadvantage and therefore could not take part in the competition was that it was funded through the taxpayer, yet both parts of Keolis-Eurostar are currently majority-owned by the French and UK Governments. What is it about that state-owned company that gives it an edge over our own state-owned company?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I just remember and call to mind the words of the last Transport Secretary under the previous Labour Government, who said that he did

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

I agree with those words, which he used when he was last in this office and had responsibility for this issue.

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

8. What recent progress has been made on the tram-train project.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

The tram-train pilot project, which introduces new services from Rotherham Parkgate to Sheffield city centre, is progressing. The seven new tram-train sets are being built, and modifications to the existing super-tram network and depot are well under way. Network Rail is developing its programme to modify the heavy rail network on which to run the tram-trains, including electrification from Meadowhall to Rotherham Parkgate and the construction of new platforms at Rotherham Central station. The service is due to start in 2016.

[Mr Betts]

I thank the Minister for that reply because, as she is aware, that is precisely the timetable. The trams are supposed to start running early in 2016. As I understand it, Network Rail’s timetable is now slipping substantially, and there are concerns that it might slip by as much as a year. In response to those concerns, Baroness Kramer has simply promised extra scrutiny and that officials would impress the importance of the project on Network Rail. Will the Minister now get a grip of Network Rail so that it gets a grip of this project and gives an absolute assurance that the trams will start to run early in 2016, as planned?

[Claire Perry]

The enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman and the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive shows how vital that project is. He will know that it is an important pilot project. If this fantastic service works, it will liberate many transport systems in other cities. It will also future-proof the lines for the long-awaited electrification process, which we want to see on other parts of the railways. The Network Rail route director, my officials and I have made personal commitments to deliver this vital project.

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

Next week, the new Metrolink line to Manchester airport will open. At 14.5 km, it has been one of the biggest civil engineering projects in the country. Will the Minister join me in thanking the M-Pact Thales consortium, which has delivered the project a year ahead of schedule, as well as Transport for Greater Manchester and the good people of Wythenshawe, who have endured the disruption with good grace?

[Claire Perry]

I certainly will. I also commend the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who came to the fabulous presentation by the Greater Manchester transport team earlier this week, where we heard about all the exciting plans for the area. It requires a large network of private and public sector innovation and effort to deliver these vital services, which are so long overdue.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

9. What recent progress his Department has made on the rail electrification programme.

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

The electrification programme announced in the 2012 rail investment strategy is under way. The Manchester to Scotland route transferred to full electric operation in early 2014, following the electrification between Manchester and Wigan. The plan is for the Liverpool to Manchester, St Helens, Wigan and Warrington routes to move to electric operation in early 2015.

[Toby Perkins]

Following cost overruns on other electrification projects, Network Rail has said that it is reconsidering all electrification projects. Commuters in Chesterfield will be very concerned that that will mean delays or reductions to the midland main line project. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the only review the Government are undertaking is about ensuring that they are on time and on budget next time, and not about cutting or delaying that important project?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not like to be party political, but considering that the last Government managed to electrify no more than 10 miles of railway in 13 years, Labour Members should not be giving any lectures to a Government who have announced plans to electrify more than 800 miles of railway. I am very proud of what we are doing. Of course there are challenges with electrification. If the hon. Gentleman pays a little more attention when he travels by train from London to Chesterfield, he will see that the work is already being undertaken.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

When he looks at the electrification of the midland main line, will the Secretary of State consider extending electrification to the line through Langley Mill and Alfreton in my seat, which has been missed out of the plan? That would improve the services for those stations and the resilience of the line.

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will look at that. However, I stand by what I have said. We have ambitious plans for electrification and it is right that we ensure they are delivered in a practical and timely manner.

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

Electrification in the rest of the north-west is adding to the worry that the Furness line might lose its direct service to Manchester and Manchester airport, which is vital. Has the Secretary of State read the report by the Railway Consultancy, which was funded by businesses in my constituency through Cumbria Better Connected, and will he pay attention to the irrefutable case to keep and improve that service?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s representations seriously and ensure that I re-read that report.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for a productive and useful meeting with representatives of the Peninsula rail group and West Devon local government, who are pressing hard for the reopening of the line through Okehampton to Tavistock and Plymouth, which would preferably be electrified. On his visit next week, will he examine closely the compelling case for the reopening of the line via Okehampton on the grounds of cost and resilience and of the economic benefits that it would bring to a wide swathe of economic areas?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for leading that delegation to my office yesterday. As I informed him yesterday, I am looking forward to my visit to his constituency next week and to seeing what is behind the points that he made to me. As we all saw last winter, resilience for the south-west is incredibly important, and I am determined to look at all the available options.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

In May when I asked the Secretary of State about problems with the electrification of the Great Western main line, he said that

“there will always be problems”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 264.]

Will he confirm that the Great Western £1.1 billion electrification project is now a £1.6 billion electrification project, and will he say which electrification projects will be delayed or cancelled when his Department has concluded its panic review of his flagship projects?

[Mr McLoughlin]

A “panic” review of a project that is more ambitious than anything the last Government ever dreamed of? I would have thought there would be a consensus across the House for the huge investment that we are putting into the railways through Network Rail. I am working with Network Rail and it is working with me to ensure that we get the electrification programme delivered, and within an overall budget.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

10. What plans he has to improve rail services in the east midlands.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

The east midlands will share in the Government’s massive investment in the railways, which is so unlike what was delivered by the Labour party. Last week we announced major service enhancements on the Nottingham to Lincoln line, which will provide 24 additional weekday trains from next May. The east midlands has already benefited from investment of approximately £70 million to improve line speeds on the midland main line up to 125 miles per hour, and it will see further investment with electrification extended to Corby in 2017 and Sheffield in 2020.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course this wonderful Minister can do no wrong, and it must therefore have been due to an oversight of her wrongheaded advisers that in the invitation to bid for the east coast main line there was no requirement to include the through train to Cleethorpes and Grimsby via Market Rasen. Will she put pressure on the bidders to ensure that the through train that we used to have, and which is vital to our Lincolnshire economy, is included?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend will know that I stood on Cleethorpes seafront only last week. I rode that line myself, and I was made fully aware of the strength of the feeling about it. Bids are currently being assessed, and I am looking forward to publishing further information in December. It is clear that we need investment in those areas of the north. The previous Government let those franchises on a zero-growth and zero-investment basis, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for recently visiting Sherwood and looking at the case for extending the Robin Hood line to Ollerton and Edwinstowe. Will she continue to support that project and give us advice on how to further it in the near future?

[Claire Perry]

I enjoyed my meeting with the Ollerton economic forum. The advice and support of such bodies—as well as of local authorities—help us to pull together a business case to look further at such investment. I commend my hon. Friend and his constituents for their hard work on this line.

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

11. What recent discussions he has had with his Department's quality contract board.

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

It is for the senior traffic commissioner to make arrangements for the constitution of a quality contract scheme board. No discussions have taken place between the Department and a quality contract scheme board, but I understand that the North East combined authority considered it on 21 October, and has decided to refer its draft quality contract scheme to the QCS board.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer; as he indicates, discussions now need to take place. In Tyne and Wear this week we took a major step forward when the North East combined authority unanimously agreed to press ahead with plans for a quality contract scheme in the north-east. Will the Minister now respect the will of the people and ensure that the quality contract board has all the resources it needs to arrive at a speedy conclusion?

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government are committed to localism and to local people making decisions about their local services. Whether to adopt a London-style quality contract scheme is a matter for individual local authorities to determine. This is an independent process, with the scheme examined by the QCS board and chaired by a traffic commissioner. It would be inappropriate for the Government to comment or intervene, but if there are issues to do with resources for that board, we would be keen to consider them.

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

Large infrastructure transport projects such as HS2 and Crossrail are all very well, and quality bus contracts may help in areas such as Tyne and Wear, but when will the Government do something—anything—for rural areas that have no buses at all, or no buses at weekends and at night?

[Mr Goodwill]

Representing a rural area, I am well aware of the problems of pensioners with concessionary travel passes but no buses to use them on when, in some cases, evening or weekend services have been withdrawn. The Government are contributing more than 40% of the farebox through subsidies to buses in various ways, and we are committed to improving local bus services wherever we can, working in conjunction with local authorities.

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

12. What research he has conducted into the effect on the number of deaths and serious injuries of increasing HGV speed limits.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

The Department for Transport commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory specifically to assess the possible effects of raising the national speed limit for heavy goods vehicles and bringing them in line with those set for other large vehicles, such as coaches and cars towing caravans. In addition, the Department conducted analysis related to the national speed limit changes using its internal well established and peer-reviewed national transport model and also considered a substantial body of existing research into the various effects of speed changes on road safety.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response, but many of us are very concerned about this proposal. The plan is to raise HGV speed limits on single carriageways when the Minister’s own impact assessment makes it clear that that is likely to increase deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I know that the Minister sometimes comes up with very good ideas, but this is daft and dangerous. I urge her to reconsider in the light of the new evidence.

[Claire Perry]

No decision is taken by me—I speak as a keen cyclist and someone with young children who are out on the roads—and my Department without careful consideration of the impact on road safety. Those speed limits have been in operation since 1960, since when technology in our road traffic and HGV fleet has advanced dramatically, and deaths and injuries caused by HGVs have declined substantially. We have assessed the deaths that might occur from the change, but we have also assessed the impact of not needing to overtake platooning lorries driving far below speed limits that already apply to other large vehicles such as coaches and caravans. I suggest that the hon. Lady speaks to hauliers in her constituency, such as Williams Haulage, which deliver vital services for the country. They are investing in safe-truck technology and they really welcome the changes.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The country faces a national shortage of 40,000 qualified HGV drivers, which is acting as a brake on national economic growth. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me and Knights of Old, a distinguished lorry operator in my constituency, and the Road Haulage Association, to see how the Government might fund a package of vocational driver training and recruitment?

[Claire Perry]

I am always reluctant to make funding commitments for the Government, but it would be a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents. This is a vital industry for Britain and a core part of economic growth, so it would be a pleasure to listen to representation about how we might improve the skills of drivers.

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

13. What steps he is taking to improve passenger safety in taxis and private hire vehicles.

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

The Government’s principal role in relation to taxis and private hire vehicles is to ensure that the legislative framework and the guidance to licensing authorities are fit for purpose. Our best practice guidance for licensing authorities stresses the importance of adequate safety checks and enforcement to ensure that these services are safe.

[John Cryer]

But the Government are also planning to allow taxi operators to subcontract calls to other taxi operators without consent. What implications will that have for safety, especially for women?

[Mr Goodwill]

All the taxis will have been licensed, albeit by a neighbouring authority. I cannot see the difference between getting into a minicab in York to go to Scarborough, so I am being driven around Scarborough in a York minicab, and a firm in Scarborough ordering a York cab for me because it is so busy owing to the success of our resort.

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

I urge the Government to look one more time at the provisions in the Deregulation Bill, which is currently before the Lords. In northern towns such as Skipton, taxis have been a key part of the problem of child sexual exploitation.

[Mr Goodwill]

It is up to licensing authorities to carry out all the necessary checks. If people who are not the designated driver are driving vehicles, it is a matter for enforcement. The changes that the Government propose would make no difference to that.

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

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

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

Last month I was pleased to announce that from December this year Shrewsbury and Blackpool will benefit from direct rail services to and from London. More generally on franchising, our programme remains on track and most recently the Department announced its intention to negotiate a three and a half year direct award on the Great Western route. On roads, we started work over the summer on a major scheme to increase capacity on the A1 western bypass around Gateshead. I can also inform the House that after its first six months of operation the HGV levy has brought in £23.4 million in revenue from foreign hauliers, substantially above the forecast.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

North-east manufacturers in the port of Tyne are warning that from January the EU sulphur directive will increase shipping costs by more than 15%. These effects could be mitigated by abatement technology, but that will take time to fit. In the meantime our local businesses are suffering. Will the Government live up to their commitment to support manufacturing and offer transitional support while new technology is implemented?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the problems that companies are facing as far as the sulphur directive is concerned. I would just point out to her in a friendly way that it was negotiated and passed by the previous Government.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T2. The Secretary of State will recall a joint letter from me and nine other of his hon. Friends urging him to restore a direct Oxford to Bristol service through Chippenham in the new Great Western franchise. Our campaign is now backed by Business West and the Swindon and Wiltshire and the West of England local enterprise partnerships. Will he meet us to consider how this could be achieved in his direct award negotiations with First Great Western?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to consider the proposal. It goes to show that rail services in the south-west, and not only in the north, are being pressed on us all the time.

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

T8. What are the Minister’s proposals for the future structures of trust ports?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that trust ports are an important part of our ports sector. They have no shareholders and plough their profits back into the port for the benefit of stakeholders. Since the modernisation of trust port guidance was published in 2009 a lot of work has been done, but I think it is time to re-evaluate the current effectiveness of trust ports and to update our guidance. A trust port study is therefore being undertaken to look at these matters. Officials are working closely with trust ports to that effect.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure copies will be placed subsequently in the Library, preferably signed by the right hon. Gentleman.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T3. The local growth deal recently announced a much needed new bridge over the River Mersey in Warrington. I thank the Minister for his support on that but ask that he continue to support the need for a second bridge over both the Mersey and the ship canal, which is a strategic priority for the local enterprise partnership. This will make a much needed difference to the town.

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

Local growth deals across the country have been a great success in supporting local priorities. A second crossing in Warrington falls firmly into the category of a local priority, and the purpose of the local growth fund is to reflect those strongly.

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

T10. Only a third of the infrastructure projects trumpeted by the Government will have actually started by 2015, and the A14 fiasco probably sums up the Government’s record on roads. When will the Government end the delays and re-announcements and start to deliver the infrastructure our country needs?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I would put the infrastructure record of this Government alongside the infrastructure investment of the previous Government any day. It would be shown to be far more substantial than anything ever planned by the previous Government. I have had the solid support of both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making sure we have available funds for infrastructure.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T4. Street lights provide safety for all, so will the Minister responsible for road safety confirm that turning off street lights at midnight results in added road safety risks for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. This is a matter for local authorities, and of course they are keen to reduce the carbon footprint resulting from having needless lights on. The experience around the country is mixed. In fact, some local authorities have shown that turning off lights does not detract from road safety.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

A large gauge rail freight network capable of carrying lorries and lorry trailers on trains is being developed across the continent of Europe. In Britain, such traffic can only reach as far as Barking from the channel tunnel, so Britain is being left behind on these developments. Will the Secretary of State look seriously at proposals to develop such a rail freight network in Britain?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with passion on this subject and has led the campaign for some time, but I have to say he has not succeeded in persuading me, just as he did not succeed in persuading the last Government, on this matter. However, I am pleased that over the last 10 years we have seen a 60% increase in freight on our railways, and I will do everything possible to encourage the freight industry to transfer more of its freight to rail, because it is in the long-term interests of this country. HS2 will also allow us to concentrate on that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

T5. I thank the ports Minister for visiting the trust port of Dover last week. It was great to have a people’s Minister come to see the rise of a people’s port at Dover. Does he agree that community directors should be appointed by the community to deliver for the community?

[Mr Hayes]

It is generous of my hon. Friend to describe me as the people’s champion. I have never sought acclamation, but it would be negligent not to step up to the mark. I was delighted to visit Dover last week, to see once again the white cliffs and to be reminded of this

“precious stone set in the silver sea”.

He is right that the link between the port and the community is vital, and community directors are critical to that. I share his view about the importance of investment in linking the port to the town, particularly in the western dock, and about the significance of community directors. He has my full support, as does the port.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that Dover also enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Ministers will know that the growth in rail usage in recent years is unevenly distributed across the regions. London has seen the highest growth and the most journeys, which has a knock-on impact in the form of overcrowded trains. What percentage of national investment in rolling stock and infrastructure will go into London commuter services over the next decade?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

I do not have those numbers directly to hand, but I am sure the hon. Lady will be reassured to know that under this Government the overall transport infrastructure spend outside London is higher than it was under the last Labour Government. I shall instruct my officials to see whether we can get the data on rolling stock, but I am sure that she, like me, will welcome the fact that the £40 billion we are spending across the country is benefiting all parts of the country. If I could just—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear from the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies).

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T6. The roads Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), from whom I anticipate an excellent answer and whom it is always a pleasure to welcome to my constituency, will be aware that the M55 link road received £2 million of Government money as part of the regional growth fund announcement. Will he meet me to ensure that the work on this vital road begins in 2015, as planned?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As my hon. Friend knows, because I visited the site with him not very long ago, I am more than happy to arrange a meeting for him with the relevant officials and my right hon. Friend to ensure that this project gets the necessary approval.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

A few days before her appointment, the rail Minister wrote to her predecessor about proposals that direct services to London from Bedwyn and Pewsey would cease as a result of electrification proposals that she described as “mad”. Will she tell the House whether she has now received a reply from herself, whether she has had an opportunity to read it and whether she agrees with herself?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out that one of my important local campaigning priorities is the maintenance of those vital direct links, but as he will know, as a former Minister, owing to ministerial propriety I can no longer directly comment on or investigate those links. I am delighted to say, however, that electrification and investment on that network is an important priority for this Government.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T7. I am grateful for the private reassurances given to me by the Minister, but he will know that Lincolnshire county council has wrongly decided to close Hawthorn road over the new eastern bypass around Lincoln. Under pressure, it is now opening a footbridge, which I am glad to say one can bring a horse across, but unfortunately not many of my constituents have stables at the back of their gardens to access Lincoln on a horse. Will he please put pressure on the county council to put a proper bridge over the bypass so that we can have access?

[Mr Hayes]

Few are greater champions of rural roads than my hon. Friend, and he knows that I share his passion in that respect, particularly in Lincolnshire. I will happily organise a meeting between the county council, him and myself to take up the very matters he describes.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that we must move on.

The Leader of the House was asked—

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

1. What recent progress he has made as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on preventing sexual violence in conflict.

[Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

7. What recent progress he has made as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on preventing sexual violence in conflict.

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

We have now started the work on delivering commitments from the June global summit to end sexual violence in conflict. Members of the UK team of experts have been deployed to Mali and to the Syrian borders, and shortly we will also deploy an expert to Iraq.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s answer and all the work he is doing in this most important area. In the International Development Committee report of June last year, we recommended that the UK Government make the prevention of violence against women and girls a priority in the response to humanitarian emergencies and that UN peacekeepers should be trained in preventing and responding to such violence. Will he kindly update us on progress?

[Mr Hague]

It is a very important priority of the work we do on this to encourage other Governments and international organisations to incorporate the prevention of sexual violence into military doctrine and training. I think we are making progress on that—in the EU, for example, by ensuring that the prevention of sexual violence is included in all common security and defence policy missions. We are also supporting the efforts of the African Union and the United Nations to ensure that there is zero tolerance of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by UN and African Union personnel in peacekeeping missions. We will keep up this work.

[Gregory Barker]

May I pay tribute to the extraordinary personal commitment of my right hon. Friend to this agenda and say how much I think it is appreciated across the House? Will he tell us what specific action he has taken to address reports—horrific reports—of violence being perpetrated against women and girls in ISIS-controlled areas of Iraq and Syria?

[Mr Hague]

This is the latest appalling demonstration of the importance of this issue. Crimes against humanity are being committed by ISIL in Iraq and in Syria. The UK is providing £23 million in humanitarian aid, including aid that meets the specific needs of displaced women and girls. We are sending an expert to Iraq to look at what we can do to work with the Iraqi Government to help prevent sexual violence in conflict, to punish those responsible in the future and to provide more assistance for those affected.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

2. If he will make it his policy that topical questions be asked in the House to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

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

While the status of oral questions is, of course, kept under review, there are no current plans to change the policy so that topical questions may be asked of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that there are occasions, particularly in Northern Ireland, when urgent matters need to be discussed and that that has sometimes proved problematic. I ask him to reconsider the possibility of perhaps allowing 10 minutes to be given over to topical questions in each session.

[Tom Brake]

I guess that one of the issues with topical questions for Northern Ireland is that matters are often more complex because of devolution. Mr Speaker has rightly been generous in allowing urgent questions, which provide another route for consideration of urgent matters in Northern Ireland.

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

I very much support the proposition put forward by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Democratic Unionists very much support the introduction of topical questions and urgent questions for Northern Ireland matters. I do not accept the argument about complexity: every Department has complex issues to deal with and Northern Ireland issues are no more complex. I thus urge the House authorities and the Government to consider this very carefully.

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I am not in a position to change my earlier response. Urgent questions provide a route to raise urgent matters. The complexities of devolution are a fact, which makes it more difficult for Members to ensure that their question is pertinent to topical questions and is one to which Ministers can respond.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I support calls for topical questions for Northern Ireland but also a review of topical questions in general and, in particular—despite the great skills of Mr Speaker—the almost impossibility of fitting in all the topical questions to the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the time set aside for topical questions to the Deputy Prime Minister was extended owing to demand. The issue is that we have a limited amount of time in this House available for questions and extending questions in one area inevitably means cutting them in another.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of September sittings of the House.

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

The House performs its functions effectively in September just as it does in other months of the year.

[Kevin Brennan]

Before anyone gets too excited, may I just make it clear that I am not suggesting that we have fewer sitting days? September sittings were introduced early in the 2000s but ignore the facts of the party conference season, which was originally at the end of September and into October because of the availability of cheap rooms in seaside resorts. That is no longer an issue for parties. Have there been any discussions about bringing party conferences forward in September so that we can avoid this very expensive two-week period when the House is brought back to life?

[Tom Brake]

The Deputy Leader of the House is responsible for a limited number of things and party conferences is certainly not one of them. Members would agree that the September sittings that we have just had were essential. We debated some essential matters and there might well have had to be a recall of Parliament had we not had those sittings. I was pleased to note that on Friday 5 September there was the largest turnout of Labour MPs ever—subject to my being corrected by the Labour Whips—on a private Member’s Bill. I was pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman’s name followed mine in the list in Hansard of those who voted.

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

Has the institution of September sittings made any difference at all to the total number of days per year on which the House sits? What does my right hon. Friend calculate the cost to be in terms of the interruption of maintenance works and the inconvenience to all people on the Parliamentary Estate when certain facilities are not available at that time?

[Tom Brake]

The number of days has not changed as a result of September sittings. Were we to abolish them, if that is something for which Members are pressing, we would simply have to make that time available elsewhere. The additional costs are marginal; I understand them to be of the order of £200,000 for that period.

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

Whatever the arrangements are for possibly changing the times of conferences, is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that it would be totally unacceptable to return to a situation where the House did not meet for nine or 10 consecutive weeks? In the past many of us urged that that should be discontinued and I am pleased that it has been.

[Tom Brake]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman and I often see eye to eye on matters in this House but on that point I am in total agreement with him. The public and indeed Members of Parliament would consider it strange that for a very extended period during the summer we are not sitting and there were not opportunities to raise important matters in this place.

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

Is not the real problem that the two Houses are now completely out of sync with each other, with the House of Lords sitting until the end of July and not now coming back until mid-October? Will the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House speak to their counterparts about trying to realign the two Houses, thus not only saving money but improving parliamentary scrutiny?

[Tom Brake]

That is a valid point and I am certainly happy to follow it up. Often the Houses are not synchronised in terms of the progress of Bills in any case, but the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. It is certainly worth seeing whether the timetables could be synchronised if that had a significant impact in reducing the costs of running Parliament.

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

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

4. What steps he is taking to reward staff for exceptional work in supporting hon. Members.

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

May I begin my answer by reiterating, on behalf of Members on all sides of the House, the gratitude for the excellent work of all those who serve us at every level in the House service? More specifically, as part of the current three-year pay agreement for the main pay groups, there is a commitment to review the existing performance management arrangements and to introduce a new system that can reward staff based on their overall contribution, including service to Members. In addition there are also a number of non-financial ways in which staff who provide excellent service can be recognised and rewarded. One particular example is through the regular “thank you” events that are now held by the acting Clerk.

[Mr Sheerman]

That all sounds fine and good, but should we in this House not be trying to be a model employer, and a model employer would not employ lots of people on short-term contracts to substitute full-time employees with agency staff? Also, surely we should be an employer that can boast that our staff have the highest morale and highest commitment. They do have the commitment, but the morale is going down week after week, and early retirements of good, valued members of staff is the result.

[John Thurso]

On morale, the most recent staff survey shows that 84% of the staff spoken to would recommend the House of Commons and PICT as a good place to work, and that is up on last year’s 76%, so I think that actually morale has been improving, particularly since we have come to a settlement on pay and other matters. With regard to contracts, I would point out that the House, in its endeavours to become a model employer, has got rid of zero-hours contracts and some of the people who were on zero-hours are now on contracts that are appropriate to the work they do. The House always looks to produce the best contract for employees and to retain its staff. We do not always succeed as best we can, but we certainly always endeavour to do it and will continue to do so.

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

5. What recent representations he has received on the case for a rescue cat being adopted to control the mouse population on the Parliamentary Estate.

[John Thurso]

That suggestion has been made from time to time, most recently and specifically by the hon. Lady, who suggested a rescue cat or two from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in our exchanges on 6 February. The idea has a clear appeal and has therefore been given full and proper consideration by the House authorities. However, that consideration showed that there are very clear practical and technical difficulties, and therefore this has led to a decision not to accept the generous offer.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful for the full reply and the fact that the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home has offered a rescue cat. It is a matter of fact that the mouse population is spiralling out of control, particularly in areas where food is being prepared, which poses a clear health hazard. Will the right hon. Gentleman review his decision and, using the same model adopted by Nos. 10 and 11, consider having a rescue cat that can be released in the evenings to keep the mouse population under control? If mice can be close to the source of food and pose a health hazard, one would think it would be perfectly sensible to introduce a cat to keep the mouse population down.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Lady has made reference to the significant rodent problem in this place, and measures are being taken to combat that through pest control. On the possibility of having a cat, given the scale and size of the estate, it would be necessary to have a great number of cats to make any real impact, and having a herd of cats on the Parliamentary Estate would present a number of difficulties. I am also advised by my own Chief Whip that herding cats is quite difficult.

The Leader of the House was asked—

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

6. What plans he has to improve the system of e-petitions.

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

9. What plans he has to improve the system of e-petitions.

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

Following a resolution of the House on 8 May, my office has been working with the Procedure Committee on a collaborative e-petition system. Details of what the new system will look like and how it will operate are still being discussed and developed. However, I can assure Members that before the end of this Parliament a set of proposals for a new e-petition system will be brought before the House for debate and decision.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. My constituent John Clough has sponsored a petition on the change.org website calling for a stalkers register that so far has attracted over 120,000 signatures. Could well-supported online petitions such as Mr Clough’s hosted on sites other than the official e-petition website play a role in influencing the debates here in Parliament?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly the petition of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent John Clough can indeed play a role in influencing Parliament, in that the hon. Gentleman has a number of opportunities to raise it, such as through Adjournment debates, and the Backbench Business Committee remains an option to raise petitions not just on the e-petition site, but any other site.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government are planning to change the threshold of 100,000 signatures in relation to e-petitions to ensure that they get more of an airing in the House of Commons?

[Tom Brake]

The Government intend to set up a petitions committee, whose purpose will be to allow a greater airing of petitions and to give advice to people seeking to table petitions. The committee will be able to consider petitions of any size, so the threshold will be completely flexible.



Royal assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Measure:

Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014.

Five Year Forward View

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

10:35

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the “Five Year Forward View” for the national health service.

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

NHS England, along with other NHS organisations, has today published its independent “Five Year Forward View”, which sets out its view of how the health service needs to change over the coming years. It is a report that recognises the real challenges facing the NHS, but it is essentially positive and optimistic. It says that continuing with a comprehensive tax-funded NHS is intrinsically do-able, and that there are

“viable options for sustaining and improving the NHS over the next five years.”

The report says that the challenges of an ageing population can be met by a combination of increased real-terms funding, efficiencies and changing the models of care delivered. It also says that

“decisions on these options will need to be taken in the context of how the UK economy overall is performing.”

In other words, a strong NHS needs a strong economy.

The report proposes detailed new models of care, putting out-of-hospital services front and centre of the solution, delivered through greater integration between primary, community and specialised tertiary sectors alongside national urgent and emergency networks. These can help to reduce demand significantly for hospital services and give older people in particular the personal care that we would all want for our own parents and grandparents.

The report talks about continued opportunities for efficiency savings driven by innovation and new technology, and suggests that they could be increased above the long-term run rate of efficiency savings in the NHS. It talks about reducing variation in the quality of care, in the wake of the tragedy in Mid Staffs, and about how the new Care Quality Commission inspection regime is designed to drive up standards across the system. It says that to do this we will need to move to much greater transparency in outcomes across the health and social care system. Finally, the report makes important points about better integrating the public health agenda into broader NHS activity, with a particular focus on continued reductions in smoking and obesity rates.

The Government warmly welcome the report as a blueprint for the direction of travel needed for the NHS. We will be responding to its contents in detail in due course, but we think it is an important contribution to the debate. We are proud of how the NHS has coped with the pressures of financial constraint and an ageing population in the last four years, but we also know that to sustain the levels of service that people want, the NHS needs to face up to change—not structural change, but a change in the culture of the way we care for people.

Given that the report has been welcomed on both sides of the House, I also hope that this can be the start of a more measured debate about the future of the NHS in which those from all parties in the House recognise our shared commitment to its future and focus on the best way to achieve the strong and successful NHS that the whole country desires.

[Andy Burnham]

A five-year forward view for the NHS, involving more than £550 billion of public spending, briefed to the media but not to Parliament—what clearer illustration could there be of the serious loss of public accountability arising from the Government’s reorganisation? The Secretary of State is in his place today only because he was dragged here by us. I do not know who runs the NHS these days, but I do know that it is certainly not him. We know why he wants to distance himself from this report: because it endorses key planks of Labour’s plan and leaves him with big questions to answer.

First, on GP services, does the Secretary of State agree with the report that primary care has been under-resourced and that people are struggling to get appointments? Will he accept its recommendation to stop his cuts to the GP budget, stabilise funding and match Labour’s plans to recruit 8,000 more GPs?

Secondly, on cancer, the report makes it clear that “faster diagnosis” is needed—we agree. So why did the Prime Minister yesterday dismiss Labour’s proposals for one-week cancer tests?

On integration, the report endorses Labour’s vision for new models of care, including hospitals evolving into integrated care organisations with more salaried GPs. Can the Secretary of State tell the House why he has spent the last few weeks attacking that plan, and is he now prepared to drop his opposition? On public health, is the report not right that the time has come for radical action on obesity, and will he now concede that his voluntary responsibility deal is simply not working?

It will not have escaped people’s notice that the report does not give one mention to competition—that is because it creates fragmentation, when the future demands integration. So will the Secretary of State commit to reviewing his competition rules and vote with Labour in four weeks’ time to repeal them?

Finally, on funding, the report could not be clearer: simply protecting the NHS budget in the next Parliament, as the Conservatives propose, will not prevent it from tipping into a full-blown crisis. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health Committee, has said, current Tory funding plans raise the spectre of rationing, longer waits and charges. Will he now drop them and match Labour’s plans for more money for the NHS? Labour has set out its plan, and today the NHS endorses that plan. The big question people are asking is: where on earth is his?

[Mr Hunt]

I talked about having a more measured debate, but I think I was speaking a trifle too soon, judging by what we have just heard. The right hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to what I actually said, so let me just repeat to him that the Government warmly welcome this report. I talked about it as a “blueprint” for the future. He did not agree with setting up NHS England, and I do not think he agreed with the appointment of Simon Stevens as the chief executive, but we did that so that we would have a body that would think strategically about the long-term future of the NHS at arm’s length from the Government. That is what it has done, and the report is excellent.

The right hon. Gentleman and I have a sometimes slightly fractious relationship, but I would like to congratulate him this morning on his Houdini-like spin in the way he is approaching this report. He has been constantly telling this House that the NHS is on the point of collapse, but the chief executive of NHS England says that the NHS has been “remarkably successful” in weathering the pressures of recent years. The right hon. Gentleman has told this House constantly that the biggest threat to the NHS is privatisation and competition. This report, a five-year forward view, by bodies at arm’s length from the Government, contains not one mention of competition and privatisation as a threat, yet he says this report endorses Labour’s plans.

The right hon. Gentleman says, as has his leader, that the first thing he would do in government is repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and strip clinical commissioning groups of their powers. He really should read the report carefully on that. He now says he welcomes the report, but it begs him not to carry out further big structural changes; it does not call for the repeal of the 2012 Act, and this is the report which he warmly welcomes today.

Then we need to consider money. The right hon. Gentleman told this House repeatedly that it was irresponsible to increase spending on the NHS, but now we have a report that says that the NHS needs real-terms increases, along the lines that this Government have been delivering in this Parliament. What does he say? He says, “It is great to have our plans endorsed by NHS England.” This report does not endorse Labour’s narrative; it exposes it for the shallow party politicking that we have had from him.

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that the really important message of this report is something we can agree on, and he should be talking about that. We both agree about the integration of health and social care, which is now happening. We both agree about improving investment in primary care. We both agree that we need more GPs. We both agree that we need more care closer to home. I think the public would say that we would have a more measured, intelligent and sensible debate—the kind of debate they want to hear—if we started talking about the things we agree on a bit more instead of constantly pretending there are vast disagreements.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has welcomed this report, which says, among other things, that there have to be new ways of working and breaking down barriers. The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine—part of the University College London Hospitals NHS Trust—which is about a mile away from here, is Europe’s largest public sector provider of integrated medicine. Will he go there and see its 13 care pathways, which use qualified complementary and mainstream practitioners, because then it will be clear to him how we can reduce costs in the health service and take the pressure off practitioners? Will he make that part of his package?

[Mr Hunt]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on finding every opportunity to promote integrated care. What the report says is that we need much more person-centred care. It welcomes the kind of models that we see in Tower Hamlets, where the new clinical commissioning groups, led by inspiring leaders such as Sam Everington, are carrying out social prescribing. GPs are actually prescribing social solutions to problems as well as medical ones. This report is a big stepping stone towards that type of integrated care.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

In my constituency last year, 23,000 people were unable to see their GP within a week. What, if anything, will these plans do to address that crisis?

[Mr Hunt]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. This report says something with which this Government very strongly agree, which is that we need to reverse the shift that there has been over many decades of investment away from community care towards hospital care. It is really important that we focus on the role of GPs. We do not want to force all GPs to become employees of hospitals, but we would like to back them, so we have brought back personal responsibility for GPs for every single NHS patient as an important first step in that direction.

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

This is an important report, which must not turn into another political football. We should focus on what it says and make that the basis for a real debate about our NHS. There are 23 references in this report to mental health. Parity of esteem is an established idea, but it has not yet been incorporated into NHS practice, so we still have further to go. Does the Secretary of State agree that another area in which we need to go further is perinatal mental health, where the cost to society, to mothers and to generations runs into billions? If the NHS could do a bit more in that regard, it would make a big difference.

[Mr Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that perinatal mental health problems have a big impact on the child as well as on the mother. This report says that we must stop looking at conditions such as mental health as separate to physical health conditions. We need to look at people’s whole condition in the round. If we start to do that, we will make the NHS sustainable by making the kind of investments that will bring down the overall cost of treatments. Putting mental health centre-stage in that approach will be an important part of our strategy.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

The NHS has been a political football ever since the 1947 Government decided to take it under public control. The Tories fought against it then, and they have fought against it ever since. The important thing to remember is that this report does not commend the Government for carrying out their reconstruction of the health service, which has cost billions. What we did when we were in power for 13 years was increase the amount of money for the health service from £33 billion to £100 billion—a threefold increase in real terms. Had we continued with that approach over the past five years, people would not be dying of cancer because they had not been tested early enough. The Tories talk about all-party agreement, but it is high time that they understood that since 1947 the Secretary of State and his posh people on millionaires’ row have opposed the very essence of the health service, which is why it will be the biggest political issue at the next election. It will also help us to win and get this lousy mob out.

[Mr Hunt]

I think that is the kind of rhetoric that does the whole country a massive disservice. If the Government had the kind of views about the NHS that the hon. Gentleman talks about, we would not have protected its budget during the most difficult recession we have had since the second world war. We actually increased the NHS budget over that period, because we believe in the NHS. With regard to what he says about the report, the chief executive of NHS England, a former Labour special adviser, said this, and it is a fact: “Over the past five years, despite growing pressure, the NHS has been remarkably successful.” That is what Labour people are saying.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I very much welcome the plans for urgent and emergency care set out on page 4, in paragraph 10, which ought to produce a solution that could be welcomed in Wycombe hospital and more than 20 similar hospitals across the country. When the proposals are taken forward, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they are explained to people in such a way that they can have real peace of mind that urgent and emergency care will be there for them?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an important point. I do not think that we have been as good as we should have been in the NHS about explaining changes to urgent and emergency care, and people are understandably worried if they think that there is any risk that they will not be able to see a doctor in an emergency, which is what the NHS is there to do. I think that we now have a better blueprint for urgent and emergency care, but the report also recognises that it is not sustainable to say that all urgent and emergency care will always be dealt with in A and E departments. We have to find a way to improve the capacity of primary care and make it easier for people to see their GP so that we can reduce the pressure on hard-pressed A and Es.

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

Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact —I invite him to visit Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust to have a look—that the reforms that his Government introduced have fragmented the health service? It is very difficult to find in the health service one common purpose or one common voice. The fact of the matter is that whether it is A and E closures or NICE—National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—prescriptions being handed down by GPs, everywhere I try to find an answer, instead of one voice, one team and one leadership, I find fragmentation and no real positive movement.

[Mr Hunt]

Let me try to reassure the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that those reforms, by getting rid of the huge bureaucracies of the primary care trusts and strategic health authorities—19,000 administrators—have allowed us to hire an extra 10,000 doctors and nurses. We are doing nearly 1 million more operations every year. I will write to him with the details, and I think that he will find that there are more nurses and doctors employed in his constituency now than there were before the reforms.

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

May I thank my right hon. Friend for appointing me to be the Government’s pharmacy champion? What role does he perceive pharmacies playing in this, because I think that they are an important part of the whole NHS?

[Mr Hunt]

I had a very enjoyable evening at the pharmacy business awards last night. Pharmacies have an important role to play, because they could save a significant number of A and E and GP visits. The single most important change—my hon. Friend and I have talked about this—is to make it possible, if a patient gives permission, for pharmacists to access their GP record so that they can see their medication history and ensure that they give them exactly the right drugs.

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

In the light of this report, is it still the Government’s case that the emerging English hospital trusts’ deficits can be dealt with by efficiency savings alone?

[Mr Hunt]

The Government believe that the NHS has to live within its means, as do individual hospitals. We recognise that that is challenging, and one of the reasons it is challenging is that in the past it has been too easy for hospitals trying to balance their books to cut corners, for example on nursing numbers in elderly care and dementia wards. We have a new inspection regime that has made it much harder to do that, which I think is a good thing, because it means that older people are getting the care they need. It also means a harder road to getting those deficits under control, however.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Page 26 of the document refers to

“an equal response to mental and physical health”.

Despite my right hon. Friend’s good leadership on this topic, I suspect that the document’s authors do not operate an equal funding formula for mental and physical health. Can my right hon. Friend give me any guidance on that?

[Mr Hunt]

We are looking at the issue very closely, and I think that we have made very good progress. We have introduced maximum waiting time targets for some mental health conditions, which has never been done before, and we have made a clear commitment to applying those targets to all mental health treatment during the next Parliament. However, my hon. Friend is right: ultimately, we need to look at funding differently. We need to look at it holistically. We need to understand that it is a false economy not to invest in proper mental health care, because it will only make the overall costs to the system greater in the long run.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Health Secretary will know that one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS is our ageing population. Thousands of lonely people are living in unsuitable accommodation and are not receiving the care that they need. What proportion of the NHS land that will be sold off over the next five years will be used to create more suitable accommodation for older people, and to create communities of care where they can be given the service and attention that they need?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady has made an important point. We would like more NHS land to be sold off for precisely those purposes.

There is a broader point to be made about housing, which is also important, and which I thought the hon. Lady was going to make. If we are to think about care in a more integrated way, we shall need to reform the NHS so that we look at people’s problems holistically, and that will include looking at their housing, which has a direct impact on their health. I think the structures that feature in the five-year plan begin to make such an approach possible for the first time, and I find that very exciting.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the key aim of our reforms is to support hospitals which have not been fully supported before? Medway Maritime hospital, which is in my constituency, had one of the highest mortality rates in 2005-06, but nothing was being done. I thank the Secretary of State for putting the hospital into special measures, so that it can secure the support that it needs to turn things around and my constituents can have an excellent hospital that delivers for them. I also thank him for visiting the hospital recently and meeting its excellent front-line staff, who do a great job.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has done for Medway Maritime. That was a very good visit: I met both management and staff, and gained a better idea of the challenges faced by the hospital.

The report makes it clear that we must become much better at tackling variations in care. Never again must we have a system in which hospitals are struggling and delivering poor care, and that poor care is swept under the carpet and nothing is done about it. The Government have put 18 hospitals into special measures—more than 10% of all the hospitals in the NHS—and that has been very challenging. We have been accused by Opposition Front Benchers of running down the NHS when we have done it, but do you know what has happened? Six of those hospitals have now come out of special measures, and nearly all the others have improved dramatically. It is time that the Labour party got behind what is a really good inspection programme, based on openness, honesty and transparency about problems.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Bolton clinical commissioning group is putting mental health services out to tender, which seems to involve a cut of between a half and a third on the basis of current spending. Are such cuts in mental health services what the Secretary of State means by his vision?

[Mr Hunt]

No, and that is why the Government legislated for parity of esteem between mental and physical health. As I said earlier, we have introduced maximum waiting times for some mental health conditions, and we have focused on improving access to psychological therapies—IAPT—and on dementia. Anxiety and depression and dementia are two of the most common mental health conditions in respect of which we can make a real difference, and we are doing more all the time.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

May I remind the Opposition that the primary care trusts that the clinical commissioning groups replaced sat above primary care, and were remote from it? Let me give an example of how much more integrated the system is now. Our clinical commissioning group has joined our hospital to fund the opening of an urgent care centre, which will relieve pressure on accident and emergency departments and give more patients a chance to gain access to the hospital from primary care. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an example of integration, not fragmentation?

[Mr Hunt]

Exactly—that is precisely the point. This report has example after example of how the new structures—clinical commissioning groups—are integrating care. That is why it makes it so clear that it would be wrong to do what Labour wants to do, which is to repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and to strip CCGs of their powers when they are providing precisely the integrated care that we all think is important.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust has made significant progress over the past two years, but it remains financially very challenged and in significant deficit. What, if anything, in these plans will help to remedy that challenging situation?

[Mr Hunt]

Two things. I have had a very interesting visit to Goole hospital. It was very impressive to see how it has responded to the special measures programme and how, as a result of the new inspection regime, which Labour Front Benchers tried to vote down, it has made real improvements in care on the front line for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Those at the hospital will be pleased to see that this report endorses the new transparent approach to dealing with variations in care. It also says that we need to continue with increases in real-terms funding for the NHS, which we only get with a strong economy.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The theme of integration is re-emphasised in this plan, but how can commissioners ensure that they achieve that integration if they are forced against their will to outsource many services and also fear that their commissioning decisions will be challenged for being anti-competitive?

[Mr Hunt]

They are not forced against their will to outsource. They make the decisions as to where they want to purchase services from, and they do so on the basis of what is best for patients. Just like the primary care trusts that they succeeded, they have to follow European law in the way that they do that.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The growing funding gap over the next five years is a real cause for concern. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether, after five years of changing plans, scrutiny and prevarication, we will finally get approval from his Department and the Treasury for the new North Tees and Hartlepool hospital, or will I have to wait for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to approve it after the election?

[Mr Hunt]

I have met the chief executive involved and heard their case for that, and we are processing it as fast as we can.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The Commonwealth Fund’s recent study of 11 national health systems, including those of Sweden, France, Germany and the United States, found that the NHS in England was ranked top for a safe, effective, co-ordinated, efficient, patient-centred care system. Against that background, is it not rather unedifying for Labour Members constantly to try to pretend that the NHS in England is in some form of crisis, particularly given the deplorable performance of the NHS in Wales, which is run by Labour? Would not the shadow Secretary of State do rather better to remember the words,

“Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye”?

[Mr Hunt]

I welcome the King James Bible reference. The independent Commonwealth Fund report that my right hon. Friend mentions contained one very startling fact, which Labour Members would do well to remember when they go on about the NHS—when they left office, we were seventh out of 11 countries on patient-centred care, whereas this year, now that we are in office, we came top. That is a huge improvement in patient-centred care. Under the new Care Quality Commission regime, his own hospital, John Radcliffe, got a “good” rating, which is an extremely impressive result.

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

The ambulance trust in the north-east has quadrupled the use of private ambulances, increasing its costs, and South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is in deficit. In my constituency, two urgent care wards and a minor injuries unit are to be closed. A medical centre in Skelton has been closed, a medical centre in Park End has been closed, and a medical centre in Hemlington is to be closed. Does the Secretary of State take any responsibility for any of these health services in my constituency or across England? Every single response we get from him, every single time, is that somebody else is to blame.

[Mr Hunt]

Not at all—I take full responsibility for the NHS. Given the pressures created by having nearly 1 million more over-65s than we had four years ago, and the fact that the Government have had to cope with the deepest recession since the second world war, I believe that the NHS is doing remarkably well, and this document gives it a blueprint for the future that we can all welcome.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Under this Government, the number of young people taking up smoking has fallen dramatically to some 3% and the number of people giving up smoking has increased. I welcome that very good news. We can now aspire to a smoke-free Britain over the next five years. Personally, I would like to see the tobacco companies taxed out of existence, but is it not irresponsible to base future spending plans on the basis of a tax on companies that will cease to exist?

[Mr Hunt]

That is a very good point and I agree with my hon. Friend that we should aspire to a smoke-free Britain. We are making remarkable progress. The point the report makes—this goes alongside what my hon. Friend has said—is that we need to integrate our thinking about public health with our thinking about the services the NHS delivers. The better care fund has shown how it is possible to get excellent collaboration between local authorities and the local NHS for the delivery of social care. Transformational things are happening up and down the country right now. I would like to see the same thing for public health as well.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Alcohol abuse costs the NHS in Nottinghamshire more than £55 million a year and cuts in social services are making the pressures worse, especially for emergency departments. Dr Stephen Ryder, consultant hepatologist at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, wrote to me recently to express his deep concern that the Government are not taking forward the introduction of minimum unit pricing. Why are this Government ignoring advice and clinicians and ducking the issue of dealing with cheap alcohol?

[Mr Hunt]

We are doing a number of things to tackle alcoholism. Alcoholism rates have continued to fall under this Government, so we are making good progress. The approach to alcohol is different from that to cigarettes, because responsible drinking is perfectly okay for a person’s health; it may even be good for their health, depending on which doctor they speak to. We want to be careful that our alcohol policies do not penalise responsible drinkers who may not have large salaries and worry very much about the pennies their shopping basket costs.

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

Women chief executives now lead every one of the three hospitals serving my constituency. We have to thank all members of the NHS for this report, but will the Health Secretary comment in particular on the role of women in delivering NHS change and development?

[Mr Hunt]

I am absolutely delighted to do that. The new hospital inspection regime we have introduced has shone a light on some outstanding leadership. One of the best examples is Basildon hospital, which had terrible problems, including blood-stained floors, blood on the carpets and syringes left lying around in wards. That failing hospital has been turned around by an inspiring chief executive, Clare Panniker, and in the space of just 18 months it has now officially been rated as a “good” hospital by the CQC. We welcome the brilliant leadership of a growing number of female chief executives.

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

GP commissioners in Morecambe bay are doing exactly the kinds of things mentioned in the report by shifting their focus from primary care to prevention. They know, however, that all the things they could do will not come close to closing the £25 million deficit. The Government say that they have to close it, but doing so would decimate hospital services. Will the Health Secretary listen to our case about the special funding needs of the area?

[Mr Hunt]

I am very happy to look into that. I recognise that all clinical commissioning groups face very real financial challenges to balance their books. That is why the report is so important, because it says that we cannot go on like this for ever and we have to look at changing the model decisively. It addresses the three things that could give hope to the hon. Gentleman’s CCG: increased real-terms funding based on a strong economy; more imagination in looking for efficiencies; and innovation and technology. We are absolutely committed to doing those things.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In my constituency Deal hospital was left under threat of closure. It has now been safeguarded. Our acute hospitals had a Care Quality Commission inspection to identify problems, which have been dealt with; they were not covered up. Dover hospital, which was wrecked, is now being rebuilt. Will my right hon. Friend take a forward view of his diary and consider reopening that hospital at the opening ceremony in the spring?

[Mr Hunt]

If I possibly can, I will be delighted to do so. This is the pattern in many parts of the NHS that we do not hear from the Opposition Benches—where there have been problems in care year after year, they are finally being addressed. In my hon. Friend’s constituency and the hospitals that serve it he will be seeing more nurses and more doctors being employed and giving a higher standard of care, particularly to vulnerable older people. That is the kind of NHS that we should all welcome wholeheartedly.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks about holistic care and a range of issues that affect people, but active participation in sport, recreation and cardiovascular activity is declining. In constituencies such as mine, that is a real problem. What will he do to integrate CCGs with district councils? He seems to be saying nothing about this.

[Mr Hunt]

In my earlier comments I spoke a bit about childhood obesity, which is a very important issue. I was the Secretary of State responsible for the Olympics, and as part of the Olympic legacy we set up the school games movement, which now has about two thirds of schools in the country doing Olympic-style games every year, and we have put an extra investment into school sport. We need to work closely with the Department for Education on this, and I agree that it is very important that we do so.

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

May I invite my right hon. Friend to come to my local hospital and to my constituency to see what good works have been done in my area? A £25 million health centre has opened, we have a new walk-in centre that was opened by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). May I ask my right hon. Friend’s views on the talk about top-down reorganisation? [Interruption.] We walked into a shambles of an NHS after 13 years of Labour government and a debacle of a CQC policy that we had to reconfigure. What are his thoughts—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has had a very full tilt. On the whole, it is a good idea to face the House, rather than the Government Front Bench. We are grateful.

[Mr Hunt]

Of course I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. Morecambe Bay hospital is one of the hospitals whose problems we are looking at in a way that should have happened before but did not. We are turning round that hospital. We are determined to do it and we want his constituents to have absolute confidence in the quality of hospital care they receive.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State told us that a strong NHS needs a strong economy, so I presume he is extremely worried about the fact that reduced tax revenues have led, on this Government’s watch, to higher borrowing this year.

[Mr Hunt]

That is why we continue to take the tough and difficult decisions—[Interruption] that keep this country on the right economic path and which are opposed at every turn by Labour. They told us that our economic plans would lead to a million jobs being lost—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) keeps calling out “Ah!” as though he is sitting in the dentist’s chair. It is quite unnecessary. He can exercise his vocal chords later.

[Mr Hunt]

Perhaps the simplest thing is to say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) that we inherited one of the poorest performing economies in Europe. We now have the fastest growing major economy in Europe and that is the best possible future for the NHS.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The report makes it clear that with an increasing population and increasing proportion of elderly patients, the role of GPs will become even more important, yet the demographics of the GP profession mean that we will lose thousands of GPs to retirement in the next few years. What can be done to address this very important problem?

[Mr Hunt]

That is a very important issue and we need more GPs. We have about 1,000 more full-time equivalent GPs during this Parliament but we face the demographic issue that my hon. Friend identifies. That is why we are looking at how we can make it easier for GPs who have stopped practising, perhaps to have a family, to come back into the profession, and how we can make it easier for GPs to do part-time work. We are looking at all those issues because we are committed to reducing the burn-out that many GPs experience by improving and increasing the number of GPs actively practising.

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

General practitioner managers throughout the land will be tearing their hair out at the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman’s statement today. According to the patient survey, 39% of people could not see their preferred GP. That is an increase of 1.2 million. My general practice managers in Sale are saying that the situation is at crisis point. Why does the Secretary of State’s view differ from theirs?

[Mr Hunt]

As I have just told the House, I welcome a report that says we need to invest more in general practice. There has been historical under-investment over decades, which is why more and more resources have been sucked into the hospital sector. We are calling time on that and saying that we have to invest more in primary care, community care and out-of-hospital care. It is a big change for the NHS, and I think that the hon. Gentleman’s practice managers will be thrilled to hear it.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

The Secretary of State may be aware that the excellent Airedale hospital, which he has visited, in the neighbouring constituency to mine, has been highlighted in “BBC News” coverage today, especially for its telemedicine service, as an example of what the future of evolving heath care may look like. Will he join me in congratulating the excellent staff at Airedale hospital on embracing change and pioneering new models of care?

[Mr Hunt]

I am delighted to do so. Airedale is mentioned in the “Five Year Forward View” as an example of how technology can be transformative. It has a system under which older people in the locality are given a red button, and as long as their TV is turned on, all they have to do is press the red button and they are talking to a nurse. That is immensely reassuring for them, and it means that they are more likely to stay healthy and happy and to live at home for longer. That is better for them and for the NHS, and it is a real model.

Business of the House

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

11:15

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s—[Interruption.] Sorry. Will the Leader of the House please announce the business for next week?

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

I will. It is nice to be thanked in advance. I am very grateful to the hon. Lady.

The business for next week will be:

Monday 27 October—Consideration in Committee of the Recall of MPs Bill (day 1). I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.

Tuesday 28 October—Opposition day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled “The negative effect of the Government’s policies on disabled people”, followed by a debate on coalfield communities. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Wednesday 29 October—Motion relating to the appointment of the chairman of the National Audit Office, followed by Second Reading of the Taxation of Pensions Bill.

Thursday 30 October—Debate on a motion relating to UK drugs policy, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the sale of park homes. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 31 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 3 November will include:

Monday 3 November—Consideration in Committee of the Recall of MPs Bill (day 2).

Tuesday 4 November—Remaining stages of the Modern Slavery Bill.

Wednesday 5 November—Opposition day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 6 November—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 November—Private Members’ Bills.

[Ms Eagle]

May I thank the Leader of the House once more for announcing the business? It is always better to thank him once he has announced it.

I want to start by expressing our sadness about the loss of life, and our solidarity with our sister Parliament in Canada as it deals with the aftermath of the terrorist attack yesterday. This was an attack on democracy, and it will not succeed.

This week, the Recall of MPs Bill received its Second Reading, and on Monday we will consider it in Committee. As Members from across the House seek to strengthen its provisions, does the Leader of the House agree that the trigger for recall should centre on a Member’s conduct, not their opinions? Does he agree that we need to go further and reform the Standards Committee? Will he support proposals that seek to remove the Government majority on the Standards Committee and increase the number of lay representatives?

Last week, the Leader of the House accused me of suffering from amnesia on the deficit. I bet he wishes he had amnesia this week because the deficit has gone up. The Chancellor promised in 2010 that he would eliminate it by the end of 2015, and because of his economic failure he has had to push that back to 2018. Figures this week show that he is off track to do even that. Mr Speaker, you would not think from all the Chancellor’s complacent boasts that borrowing went up by 10% in the first half of the year. In its forecast in 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility told us that wages would grow by 7.5% by the end of this year. They have actually fallen in the biggest squeeze on wages since Victorian times. Despite all the talk of Tory fiscal responsibility, the Prime Minister has just announced £7 billion-worth of pie-in-the-sky, unfunded pre-election bribes. With all the missed targets, is it not time for the Leader of the House to admit that this is less of a long-term economic plan and more of a really, really, really long-term economic scam?

This week, the Government were heavily criticised by the National Audit Office for failing to deport more foreign criminals. Unless they stand up to their Eurosceptic Back Benchers, on 1 December the UK will no longer be able to use the European arrest warrant, which enables the arrest and transfer of suspects across borders and was instrumental in the rapid return of one of the 7/7 bombers to face trial. The head of the Association of Chief Police Officers said that the warrant gives us

“a stronger, more effective means of arresting dangerous criminals”.

Until recently, the Tories were briefing that they would keep it. However, I hear that the Tory Chief Whip has been making panicked phone calls to his Back Benchers, suggesting that they may drop it. Will the Leader of the House therefore tell me whether he thinks that pandering to UKIP is more important than the security of this country? Will the Tories stand up to their own Eurosceptics and have a vote?

As Halloween approaches, it seems that the Tories are dusting off their ghosts of Governments past. This week, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) launched an astonishing attack on a campaign by the girl guides for more sex and relationships education in schools, claiming that it would increase teenage pregnancy. Last week, the Prime Minister turned up, for the first time in 14 years, to a meeting of the ultra-Thatcherite No Turning Back group to plead with his ever-loyal Back Benchers. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) was openly conniving with the UKIP treasurer over lunch. It is no surprise that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) took to the airwaves to challenge more Tory Eurosceptics to defect to UKIP. Today’s Tory party just cannot stop banging on about Europe.

I am often hard on the Tory Chief Whip, but, looking at his party, he does have the hardest job in politics. He has lost two high-profile votes, lost two Ministers to resignation and lost two MPs to UKIP. It is no wonder he is never here. Apparently, he has been hiding in Rochester and Strood. When asked about the UKIP threat, he said:

“Does this face look bovvered?”

The way the Government are pandering to UKIP, they are less Catherine Tate and more “Little Britain”.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I absolutely concur with her opening words on our sadness about what happened yesterday in Ottawa and our strong solidarity with the Government and people of Canada. They were very much in our thoughts as news of the incident broke yesterday. Of course, we will continue to work closely with Canada and many other nations on countering terrorism and protecting our own and their national security.

The hon. Lady asked about the Committee stage of the Recall of MPs Bill. I certainly agree that recall should be about the conduct of Members, rather than the opinions of Members. The House will be able to make its own decisions in Committee. The Standards Committee does a very good job. It currently has 10 MPs and three lay members, and it is for the House to consider whether there should be any change. Proposals may be put forward by any Member of the House.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on mentioning the deficit this week. Last week, we were waiting for mentions of the deficit. It is brave of her to mention it on the day when the Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that, under Labour’s plans, there would be £28 billion of additional deficit and additional borrowing. That is the scale of the black hole that has been described by a left-leaning institute. It raises a set of additional questions that Labour has to answer. The Chancellor has emphasised all along that, although the deficit has fallen by more than a third under this Government, there is more work to do. That has to be recognised by Labour Members as well.

The hon. Lady asked about the return of foreign national offenders. There was an urgent question to the Home Secretary on that earlier this week, so the House has discussed the matter in some detail. Under this Government some 22,000 foreign national offenders have been removed. Numbers are now going up again, and we are taking additional action to reduce the number of appeals.

On the European arrest warrant, as the hon. Lady knows, the Government have exercised the opt-out from justice and home affairs measures following votes in both Houses. That will bring about the biggest return of power from Brussels to Britain since we became a member of the European Union. That is an entirely welcome development, but it is important that our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to bring serious international criminals, such as members of paedophile rings and human traffickers, to justice. That is why we are negotiating to rejoin a smaller set of measures. Those negotiations have not yet concluded, but once they have we will return to the House. The protection of our national interest and fighting crime are obviously prime considerations, as well as the independence of the country and our freedom to decide things in this House.

The hon. Lady asked about a number of party matters, and I assure her that we are not pandering to anybody—[Interruption.] She is always fascinated by the whereabouts of the Chief Whip, and I assure her that he is gainfully employed in many different ways—[Laughter.] Gainfully was the word, just so Hansard is correct, rather than “gamefully”. In a similar vein, I congratulate the hon. Lady on still being in post following the first stealth reshuffle in the history of Her Majesty’s Opposition under any party. It was trailed in advance by the New Statesman as something that would bring back “the big beasts” to the Opposition Front Bench. The biggest thing we can identify is the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) becoming shadow Europe Minister. That does not constitute the return of the big beasts growling at us from the Opposition Benches, but it is possibly the first ever reshuffle that hardly anybody in the country has noticed. We wonder whether the people who were reshuffled have yet noticed that they were reshuffled because we have not seen much spark of life from them, but we are happy to see the hon. Lady in her position today.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate on making better use of natural resources? Is my right hon. Friend aware that within a few days we will be undertaking the flawed ritual of putting our clocks back, thereby plunging the nation into darkness by mid-afternoon? Can we examine the benefits of having summertime in winter and double summertime in summer? If, as I suspect, the only objectors are a handful of Scots, can we say to them, “You want more powers for your Parliament, so we will give you powers to set your own time zone”?

[Mr Hague]

The House has debated this issue over the past few years. I am not sure that Scots are the only objectors, as in North Yorkshire we would also be plunged into darkness quite early in the morning. There are many different views on the matter around the House, but it is, of course, open to my right hon. Friend, who feels strongly about it, to pursue it. There have been private Members’ Bills on the issue in the past, and I have no doubt that there will be in future.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Public Health England this week reported an increase in deaths from liver disease of 40% in 12 years as a result of increasing levels of alcohol consumption, which suggests that the Government’s alcohol strategies have failed. Is it not time that we had a serious debate in Government time on all aspects of Britain’s alcohol problem?

[Mr Hague]

There is a case for a debate on that, and the matter was raised during the urgent question to the Secretary of State for Health a few moments ago. He pointed out that there can be benefits to moderate alcohol consumption, but not to excessive alcohol consumption. None of us has the perfect answer for this issue, but all parties will be concerned about it. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make the case for a debate to the Backbench Business Committee, or request an Adjournment debate.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House send a message from this House to his counterpart at the Canadian House of Commons in Ottawa, expressing our condolences for the cowardly murder of the Canadian soldier there, and reiterating cross-party support from this House and this country to our Canadian allies and cousins?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I absolutely will. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with the Canadian Foreign Minister and, of course, our high commission in Ottawa has been closely engaged in and well informed about what has happened. Several hon. Members have raised this issue and our strong solidarity with the people of Canada, so I will certainly send such a message to the Leader of the House of Commons in Ottawa.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

People are furious about today’s news that the notorious police killer, Harry Roberts, is due to be released, and the police say that it is a betrayal. The Home Secretary promised that life would mean life for anybody convicted of killing a police officer. What will the Government do to ensure that that evil criminal is kept behind bars where he belongs?

[Mr Hague]

There will be much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. As I understand it, the decision has been made by the Parole Board, but of course people will be concerned by it and agree with what he has said. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and the concern in the House about that decision.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have a debate on metal theft? While instances of metal theft have reduced significantly since the introduction of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, recent months have unfortunately seen increases in metal theft from churches in particular parts of the country. We need to consider what support we give to the police following the disbanding of the national metal theft taskforce.

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government have invested more than £6 million in the national metal theft taskforce since it was formed in January 2012. That has led to an obvious improvement, and the Church of England has reported a large and welcome reduction in overall metal theft since 2012, although I am concerned to hear my right hon. Friend say that it is going up again. We agreed to provide funding for the taskforce to cover the first part of the new legislation and ensure that individual police forces had the time to implement proposals to tackle this crime effectively, as it is predominantly up to them to do so.

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

On 30 April, I and several colleagues met the Prime Minister to talk about the issue of UK compensation for the victims of the Gaddafi regime’s sponsorship of IRA terrorism. It was a very positive meeting and subsequently the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Sir Kim Darroch to make progress on the issue with the Libyan authorities. May we have a statement to update the House on what progress has been made?

[Mr Hague]

It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to ask questions of the Foreign Office. He will appreciate how difficult the situation has been in Libya in recent months, with the violence between militias. Libyan ministries have not easily been able to function, so it has been a difficult period to take the issue forward, through no fault of anyone in the UK. I will convey his request for an update to my colleagues and I suggest that he also asks the relevant questions.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Leader of the House and I both represent mainly rural constituencies. May we have a debate on the need for the Association of Chief Police Officers to meet the Countryside Alliance and other rural organisations to ensure that, while maintaining security, the police do not take a heavy-handed approach to rural shotgun licence holders?

[Mr Hague]

There are many rural issues we could benefit from discussing in the House, and I have no doubt that the point that my hon. Friend raises is one of them. I cannot offer a debate on it in Government time, but I am sure that he will be able to pursue a request for such a debate through the normal methods of Backbench Business debates and Adjournment debates.

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

The sad news this morning of 9,000 more job cuts in Lloyds banking group will hit hard in my constituency and elsewhere. Is it not time that we had a debate about what is happening in the banking industry? I do not want just to knock it, because it is vital and we need it to be successful, but may we have a debate on how we get return to a healthy banking sector that actually helps people rather than hinders them?

[Mr Hague]

Parts of the banking sector are on a long journey back to health. The announcement, which will of course be of great concern to individuals working in Lloyds bank, is another illustration of that and of the pressures that remain in the sector. The good news is that it comes against a background of increasing employment overall, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Indeed, the fall in unemployment in the past year is one of the biggest we have ever seen in the history of this country. Nevertheless, the banking sector is an important topic and I will convey that point to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman might also wish to seek debates through the normal methods.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I correct the record and say that I did not criticise the girl guides earlier this week? I merely criticised the Labour party for claiming that the child abuse scandal in Rotherham was caused by a lack of sex education rather than the politically correct culture of Labour councils.

May we have a debate on the Government’s ludicrous proposals to give GPs an extra £55 every time they correctly diagnose somebody with dementia? Surely GPs are already paid to diagnose their patients correctly with whatever ailment they have. If the Government do not have enough money to give low-paid nurses a 1% pay rise, how on earth can they find the money to give highly paid GPs an extra £55 a pop for doing their job?

[Mr Hague]

This is a proposal from NHS England. The remuneration of GPs is structured to give them additional remuneration for particular tasks. As my hon. Friend appreciates, dementia is a horrific and heartbreaking disease. We are in a situation where fewer than half the people with dementia know that they have it and that has to be unacceptable. A timely diagnosis is therefore vital for people with dementia and their families to get the care and support they need. This proposal is designed to help that, but there will of course be opportunities to ask the Secretary of State for Health and other Health Ministers about it.

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

The Leader of the House will know that the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill is on the Order Paper again tomorrow. The Government are on record as officially supporting the Bill, but they have contrived to have it blocked on the past two sitting Fridays. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this apparent contradiction and indicate whether tomorrow the Government Whips might assist in progressing, rather than hindering, the matter?

[Mr Hague]

The Government support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and I pay tribute to him for introducing it. We have always said that we want to legislate on this matter and that has certainly not changed. I cannot predict what individual hon. Members will do, but his point will have been heard throughout the House.

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

May we have time to debate the Environment Agency? It has changed out of all recognition since the problems we had at the beginning of the year, but we do not want it to revert to type. The problem with any such organisation is that it tends to go back to the basics. If that happens, the people whose lives were blighted right across the United Kingdom at the beginning of this year, and last year too, will feel that we have let them down. It is the pressure from this House that has made the agency change. May we have time to debate that pressure on the Environment Agency, to keep it changing and to maintain the work it is doing?

[Mr Hague]

This is an important issue and my hon. Friend has been assiduous in pursuing it. I hope it is not necessary to have a debate on it. There have, as my hon. Friend says, been important changes in the Environment Agency, including changes in leadership and personnel. We all hope that that change will be sustained. If it is not, my hon. Friend would be quite justified in calling for a debate.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we debate the role of the Chief Whip, whom the Leader of the House said was gainfully employed? Does he include in that the bizarre set of videos that have appeared on the internet showing the Government Chief Whip doing his impersonation of the fictional Tory Chief Whip Francis Urquhart, and appearing in somebody’s back garden declaiming lines from the TV programme “Game of Thrones”? Has the Leader of the House seen these videos and does he think something should be done about the increasingly attention-seeking antics of the Government Chief Whip?

[Mr Hague]

I am a little busy with the British constitution and many other matters, and I have not been watching these YouTube clips in my spare time—not that I have much spare time—but they sound fascinating. It is of course right that right hon. and hon. Members use all the new forms of social media to communicate with our constituents and the country at large, as I do on Twitter, which I recommend to hon. Members. No I have not seen the clips, but I look forward perhaps to taking a look.

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

The Leader of the House will know that I have previously raised the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five children, who had been sentenced to death by the courts in Pakistan under its unacceptable blasphemy laws. After four years in custody, she has now lost her appeal at the high court in Pakistan, which has sentenced her to death by hanging. May we urgently ask the Government of Pakistan to review this miscarriage of justice and reform its completely unacceptable blasphemy laws, which run contrary to religious freedom and basic human rights? May we also have an urgent statement or debate on the treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan?

[Mr Hague]

This is a very concerning case. I have in the past, as Foreign Secretary, discussed the application of blasphemy laws in Pakistan with senior members of the Government there. It is concerning that in the recent appeal hearing the court sadly upheld the death penalty. The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle, including in this circumstance. The EU is raising the case with the Pakistani authorities, and will continue to do so at a senior level, and our high commission in Islamabad will be supporting the EU-led action. We will continue to pursue this case.

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

May we have a debate in Government time on the proliferation of police cautions? My local newspaper yesterday exposed this issue. More than 100 cautions have been issued in the past 12 months for very serious criminal offences, four them rape. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which was supposed to help by allowing cautions for only minor offences, is clearly not working.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. As with so many requests, I cannot offer a debate in Government time, because so much of the House’s time is allocated to Backbench Business debates.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Not enough.

[Mr Hague]

And some people would like still more.

However, it is open to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) to pursue that avenue for a debate. Across the country, as he knows, we are achieving a reduction in crime, but that does not mean that everything is perfect. We have an increase in the number of neighbourhood police officers and so on, but I encourage him to pursue a debate through all the normal methods.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

First, may I wish everyone who is celebrating it a happy Diwali?

Harrow council is currently consulting on closing libraries, day centres and the local arts centre. At the same time, the Labour group has decided to bring back the role of chief executive, which the last minority Conservative administration abolished, at a cost of more than £1 million. May we have a debate in Government time on these wicked proposals across the county to close centres when money could be saved in other ways?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend can certainly promote a debate on this issue, but of course his point is that these decisions are made locally; councils are in the driving seat. Every part of the public sector needs to do its bit to pay off the inherited deficit, including local government, but councils should be protecting front-line services and keeping council tax down by merging back-office services and ensuring that administration costs less, rather than more. I am sure he will continue to encourage his local council to do exactly that.

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

Two hundred years ago, the British Government made in France one of the canniest property investments in British history. May we have a debate on Britain’s incredible relationship—despite its ups and downs—with France, particularly in terms of trade?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend draws attention to the Duke of Wellington’s purchase for 800,000 francs of what became our embassy in 1814. I was there on Monday night to celebrate that fact. Many historians were assembled to help us look back at the events of those times and to understand how, since then, we have moved on from centuries of conflict with France. There was the entente cordiale from 1904, and we are now inseparable allies. I am not sure when we can have a debate about that, but my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to it today.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On Saturday, I shall be leading the Wellingborough taskforce campaigning in east Northamptonshire on our EU referendum. During that campaigning, the No. 1 issue on the doorstep will be EU migration. The new President of the European Commission has said that the free movement rules cannot be changed. Our Prime Minister has rightly said that we will control immigration from the European Union in the future. Will there be an opportunity on Monday, when the Prime Minister makes his statement, for him to update us on that position?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend and others will have every opportunity on Monday to ask the Prime Minister about these things. A number of statements by EU officials and leaders have been made over recent days, but as my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister has a track record of outperforming expectations in EU negotiations, including reducing the EU budget for the first time ever and getting us out of the eurozone bail-outs, for which the Labour party left us liable. The Prime Minister has said that he will set out his intentions later in the year, but my hon. Friend will of course be able to ask him about them on Monday.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The largest annual fall in unemployment since records began is a hugely significant moment in the life of our nation, yet it is being treated by the media this week as if it were just last week’s news. Likewise, the Conservative proposals to abolish youth unemployment in the lifetime of the next Parliament is another hugely politically significant moment. May we have a full day’s debate in Government time—with a vote at the end of it—on Wednesday 3 December, the day of the autumn statement, so that we can publicise to the nation the tremendous economic progress the coalition Government have made?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend draws attention to what is perhaps the most important thing happening in this country at the moment, and it is vital that we always remember the work of Parliament in that. He has reminded us that employment is up by 1.75 million since the last general election, and over 2 million more people are employed in the private sector since the last general election. This is the strongest possible vindication of the economic policies that the Government have pursued. I hope that the autumn statement on 3 December will indeed concentrate people’s minds on that, and on the opportunity to have 3 million more apprenticeships over the next Parliament, as set out by the Conservative party. I am sure we shall all want to debate these things.

Points of Order

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

11:48

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your view on the role of the Leader of the House. Last week, I thought the Leader of the House assured me that there would be an opportunity to discuss the Ebola crisis in Africa. What can we do if the Leader of the House gives an assurance and then does not follow it through. Do you have a role in this, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not aware of any breach of undertaking. I respond cautiously because the hon. Gentleman presumably has a specific instance in mind. He recalls a commitment that he thinks was made, but I am not aware that there has been a breach. I would say two things. First, in my experience the Leader of the House—I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 20 years—has always been a person of his word who treats this House with the utmost respect. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has been here for 35 years, and if there is a feeling of unhappiness on his part, I am sure he can talk to the Leader of the House. As to whether I regularly talk to the Leader of the House, of course I do, and I am quite happy to have a chat with him about this. Because the hon. Gentleman has been here 35 years, as I say, I will allow him a follow-up, but we must then move on.

[Mr Sheerman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

May I just compliment the hon. Gentleman on his bright and enlivening tie?

[Mr Sheerman]

It is the only one I could find in my office this morning. Someone from the Green campaign gave it to me, as you can see.

What ability do you have, Mr Speaker, if the Leader of the House makes a commitment at any time and does not follow it through? I asked last week about the Ebola crisis and feel passionately that we seem to be ignoring it in the House. I thought we had a commitment. Do you have a role in chasing the Leader of the House on this?

[The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will respond, but let us hear from the Leader of the House.

[Mr Hague]

Further to that point of order, it is a huge relief to hear that the hon. Gentleman was given the tie.

I do not have the record here, but I think I said last week that the Secretary of State for Health had made a statement the previous week about Ebola, that there would be further opportunities in the House and that the Government would keep the House updated. One of the things that the Prime Minister will discuss at the EU summit in the next couple of days is the response to Ebola. In his statement on Monday the Prime Minister will be expanding on the latest situation. I did not say that there would be a discussion of it this week, but there will be on Monday. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can look forward to that.

[Mr Speaker]

I simply say two things to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). First, the main recourse for a Member disappointed that a matter he or she judges to be urgent is not being aired in the House is of course to apply to me for permission to put an urgent question, 185 of which have, I think, been granted since June 2009. Secondly, although I have made it clear that I think the Leader of the House is absolutely a person of his word and of unimpeachable integrity, I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if the Speaker were required to apply a sanction every time something said was not subsequently delivered upon, I would be an extraordinarily busy man.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I take the opportunity to apologise to the Leader of the House for suggesting during the business statement that he was wrong to say that the Government Chief Whip was gainfully employed? I understand that the Government Chief Whip and his dog Snowy have just become runners-up in the parliamentary dog of the year competition, so I withdraw the implication that he does not have much to do with his time.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a characteristically resourceful and ingenious use, and abuse, of the point of order procedure by the hon. Gentleman.

Perhaps we can now proceed to the first of the two debates scheduled to take place today under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. That first debate is on the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. To move the motion—wow, does he look excited about it—I call Sir Edward Leigh.

Backbench Business

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2010-12, Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, HC 436, and the Government response, Cm 7951; and the Thirteenth Report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2013-14, Fixed-term Parliaments: the final year of a Parliament, HC 976]

11:52

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government should bring forward proposals to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

The motion, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and other Members of this House, is to review and repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Act was passed, of course, in the heady early days of the coalition, with many new Members present. This is a good time, after four years, to think about it, to review it and, I hope, to determine to repeal it.

Fixed-term Parliaments were marketed to us as a restriction on the excessive power of the Executive. In reality, fixed-term Parliaments are a restriction on democracy, not on the Executive. It was claimed then that a general election called at a time advantageous to a sitting Government, or because Parliament clearly needed refreshing after, say, four years, was somehow less legitimate than a general election held at a fixed time every five years.

Leaving aside the point that a democratic mandate is a democratic mandate whenever it is held, a Dissolution is forbidden under the Act unless two thirds of the entire membership of the House, including any vacant seats, support a motion calling for an election. That means that a party or group that has just one third of the seats has the power to block a Dissolution and can prevent the Government from consulting the people. How is that democratic? I think that undermines the whole democratic legitimacy of the Government, whether it is a majority or a minority Government. The old system, of course, allowed a Prime Minister to find a route out of decisional gridlock. It permitted the Government to consult the people on developments which may have been unforeseen at the time of the last general election. Governments who found themselves hanging under a parliamentary scandal—or when the economy is going badly or something has gone badly wrong—had an easy route out, and voters could give them their marching orders or return them to power.

We have always valued the combination of the general election and the first-past-the-post system, because it is, we say, capable of producing strong sustainable Governments who can deliver on their promises to voters. That has always been our pride. To an extent, we have therefore defined ourselves in opposition to other systems which have to form coalitions after general elections. I think all of us hope that the present coalition is an aberration. Our major political parties—particularly the Labour and Conservative parties—are, of course, coalitions in themselves, formed before elections in order to present voters with real choices.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On my hon. Friend’s remarks about the coalition, I have read his piece on the “ConservativeHome” website, and perhaps he would be good enough to look at mine, because I very much agree with him. The problem is not just the question of institutional issues; it is also the practical reality of the Liberal Democrats having the capacity, in relation to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and in other respects, to frustrate the government of this country by a Conservative majority.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is not for me to speak for the Liberal Democrats—unfortunately they seem to be absent from the Chamber. May I say that I always read my hon. Friend’s speeches with the closest possible attention? Both he and I were, of course, in coalition in our beloved Conservative party with a social-liberal leadership. I sometimes think that the Conservatives on the Treasury Bench would rather be in coalition with the Liberals than with the likes of me. If that is true, it is no surprise if party membership is under stress.

The contrary system to ours involves a host of smaller parties combining in smoke-filled rooms—although they are probably smokeless now—in order to make deals and hash out a coalition that may be contrary to voters’ wishes. That is often the continental system.

Of course, the Act we are talking about today moves against the spirit of the idea that one Parliament cannot bind another. That is rubbish anyway, because if somebody gets a majority in the next Parliament, they can simply repeal this Act in an afternoon. All the checks and balances are meaningless in any event, because one Parliament cannot bind another.

So, looking to other parliamentary democracies outside the Westminster system, we see that fixed terms are a rarity. Often they are based on the peculiarity of local circumstances, such as in Germany or Switzerland. France, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands all provide for early Dissolution more easily than is envisioned under this Act.

One highly esteemed political scientist, Juan Linz, described in 1994 the capability for an early Dissolution as a critical antidote to the temporary rigidity of presidential-style systems. Linz was wise to point out that the power of Dissolution allows for stronger Governments who are more capable of responding to emergencies or to changes in democratic expression. He wrote that the fixed tenure means that the

“political process therefore becomes broken into discontinuous, rigidly determined periods without possibility for continuous readjustments as political, social and economic events might require.”

Indeed, I think the whole idea of fixed-term Parliaments has a Blairite feel to it, in a fawning admiration of the American style of government.

While a long line of thinkers, not least Russell Kirk, have been keen to point out the British roots of the American system, in fact, as you will know, Mr Speaker, it is very different from our own. Our daughter-Parliaments in Ottawa, Canberra and elsewhere have grown up in a very different way from the American system. The United States does not even have general elections, with different portions of both its Houses being elected in fits and starts every two years.

There is also another factor in the American system which we must avoid importing to these islands—this is an important point, which we have seen in this Parliament. With America’s fixed terms, the first half is spent legislating while the second half is spent in campaigning and raising money for the coming election campaign. The fixed date of the election is inherently conducive to that kind of mentality.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Is the logical extension of the hon. Gentleman’s argument that President Obama should be given the power to decide to call an election when he feels it appropriate, rather than when the constitution states that it should take place? Does he think that the President’s internment in a prison or a mental institution would be the first thing that would happen if he were to suggest such a thing?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The whole point is that the American system is completely different from ours, so it would be unwise for me or anyone else in this House to lecture President Obama on when he should go. Actually, the United States does have a system whereby a President can be removed through impeachment, and President Nixon took that route.

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

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think his comment about the former Prime Minister Tony Blair was a little unfair. I cannot see that particular relationship with the United States, but does the hon. Gentleman see such a relationship in respect of the search to import other constitutional effects? I have never liked the idea of referendums, for example. Does he agree with me on that? In addition, of course, the idea of a recall is very much derived from the American experience.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I take back that cheap shot against Tony Blair—it was perhaps unnecessary—and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Over the centuries, we have established a pretty good system. I think we are the only country in Europe never to have been a police state or had a police state imposed on it. We should be pretty proud of our slow constitutional growth.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

When President Nixon and Spiro Agnew resigned, the United States ended up with a President and Vice-President who had been elected by Congress and not by a mandate of the people. It is therefore possible to have a change of power without an election there, which would not happen here.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Exactly; that is a very fair point.

Our own beloved Mark Darcy, a BBC journalist who is really an ornament of the constitution, put it very well when he said that there was a danger under the Act of Parliaments

“oscillating between hyperactivity and torpor” .

We appear to be at the torpid end of this Parliament.

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I regret that you cannot join us and make a speech. We recollect your coruscating arguments during the passage of the Bill, but we accept that you are of course now completely neutral.

I just think that five years is far too long. We have experienced a very front-loaded Parliament. The best evidence of that has been the recent explosion in the number of Back-Bench debates, compared with the number in the early part of the Parliament. I welcome Back-Bench debates, but they are taking place not through the kindness of the Government but because there is no majority in the House to do anything that would make a real difference. In my experience, the very best Conservative and Labour Parliaments have been four-year Parliaments, and the very worst have lasted for five years—in particular, our 1992 Parliament and Labour’s 2005 Parliament. Towards the end, five-year Parliaments get weaker and weaker.

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

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument carefully. Does he agree that, for the purposes of consistency across the United Kingdom, if we were to go back to the old system and give this power back to the Prime Minister, that arrangement should also apply to the devolved Administrations? Should the leaders of those Administrations also be able to call an election whenever they wished?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

In my personal view, that is a fair point. The right hon. Gentleman has intervened at a good point, because I was about to say that our insistence on a five-year Parliament has resulted in delaying elections in the devolved Administrations. That delay was proposed because, when we had an election on the same date in Scotland, there was an unacceptable 147,000 spoiled ballot papers. I really do believe in devolution, however, and it is up to the devolved Parliaments to make that decision.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend saying not only that he is against fixed-term Parliaments but that the flexibility to go up to five years should be removed? Is he saying that, in a system in which an election could occur at any time, it should be called only within a four-year time frame?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I am not saying that. I think we should simply go back to the old system and the Prime Minister should be able to call an election when it is appropriate. I agree, however, that if we were going to have a fixed term, a four-year one would be much more acceptable. However, we are not here to honour fixed-term Parliaments; we are here to bury them. So I would rather go back to the old system, which worked perfectly well. Interestingly, in the previous century the average length of a Parliament was four years and 10 months—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Three years—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Sorry, three years and 10 months. So if we stick with this Act, in the next century we could lose six general elections—that is six occasions on which the people are given a real choice. In short, the greater flexibility that the power of Dissolution allows is to the advantage of our parliamentary democracy. The great advantage of our constitutional tradition is that it bends rather than breaks, but fixed-term Parliaments remove that flexibility, with consequences that cannot be foreseen.

Professor Robert Hazell of University College London’s constitution unit, has said that

“Anthony Eden’s decision to call a premature election in April 1955 can be justified on a mandate basis: he had only taken over as PM nine days earlier after the resignation of Winston Churchill. Fixed terms will remove or at least limit the government’s capacity”

to renew their mandate. We all know that the decision of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), not to have a general election as soon as he was elected—or, rather, appointed—as Labour Prime Minister was a serious mistake and his Government never recovered from it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

That points exactly to the other argument on this issue. Had the former Prime Minister gone to the country on that date, he probably would have won a general election. The Government have an enormous power in being able to choose an election date, and is that not the other side of the coin?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is the other side of the coin, which is why the Liberal party, which always delights in its own rationality, came up with this idea of fixed-term Parliaments. It is strange that the Liberal party, which is so apparently rational in all respects, is so unpopular with the people—I never quite understand that. It is precisely the sort of point that comes from political scientists and leads to dangerous constitutional innovations that are not thought through and are, in the end, profoundly undemocratic. The old system was better, more democratic and more in tune with what the public want.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is it not entirely unfair to criticise the Liberal Democrats when they are not here to defend themselves?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a good point. [Interruption.] Why be fair in politics anyway—they are not.

This constitutional change was not in our manifesto, although I believe it was in both the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. Interestingly, the Liberals maintained that fixed-term Parliaments would

“ensure that the Prime Minister of the day cannot change the date of an election to suit themselves.”

It is telling that the Liberals speak so contemptuously of consulting the people and seeking their approbation. I believe the Liberals had previously been in favour of a referendum on the European Union before they decided they were against one—they now say they will have a referendum at the time of a treaty change. Why not have a vote on the European Union at a fixed time—they have succeeded in foisting that on us for our Parliaments? They are totally irrational, and they are arguing from different points of view on fixed-term Parliaments and on a referendum on Europe. When did their support start imploding? It was when they broke their election promises on tuition fees, and they have never recovered. That was in the heady days of the coalition, which they were determined to try to maintain for five years. Indeed, now they are apparently the main body of people who have maintained that this coalition must struggle on for five years.

How was the arrangement formed? It was a hash job—let us be honest about it. It was designed to keep both parties in the coalition from doing a runner on each other and it was never thought through properly. This was always going to be a loveless marriage, and fixed-term Parliaments were a pre-nuptial settlement drawn up between two parties that were never in love. Indeed, they had to bind their marriage in barbed wire to stop them ratting on each other. Is that the right way to make a major constitutional innovation? I do not think it is. These constitutional innovations of profound import for our democratic system should have been the result of lengthy debate and academic debate, but they were not. They were cobbled together in five days in May in secret meetings between the leaderships of the two parties. These things were put not to a vote of my parliamentary party, but to a show trial public meeting of MPs in Committee Room 14 with planted questions. There was no democratic mandate in our manifesto for the fixed-term Parliament. We should put this issue in our manifesto and repeal the Act, and think about repealing it now.

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

My hon. Friend is doing jolly well and I love the things that he is saying, but before he moves on, will he look for a moment at the length of time between the election and getting a winner in using the first-past-the-post system? It was five days then. Imagine the next time when it could be five, 10 or 20 days to make the Liberals happy.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This was the subject of a very good debate among experts in the Hansard Society. They pointed out that this Parliament will end on 28 March. We will have a record five-and-a half-week campaign and two weeks of negotiations, so we could have two months without a Government, which would be the longest time that this country in recent history has not had a Government. We could have a Belgian situation—I love the Belgians but they do not necessarily have the best sort of Government—with no Parliament and no Government.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I think my hon. Friend is factually incorrect when he says that we will not have a Government. We will have a Government, but it will not be open to scrutiny.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes, that is true, but we all know—my right hon. Friend has been a Minister as have I—that the moment the election is called, civil servants do not allow Ministers to do anything. In theory, we still have Ministers in charge, but in practice we do not have a Government who can do anything. It is worrying that under this Act of Parliament we could have such a long period of, effectively, no Government.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my hon. Friend be good enough to give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

For the second time.

[Sir William Cash]

Yes, indeed. With respect to the role of the civil service—of Lord Gus O’Donnell specifically—in putting this coalition together, an extraordinary amount of power was exercised by civil servants in relation to the coalition discussions, which included the proposals for this Act.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I did not know about that, but my hon. Friend raises a good point, and I am very worried about it. Frankly, this coalition shows us that coalitions are a bad idea. It would have been much better to have had a minority Government. We could have gone to the people after a year or 18 months to seek a proper mandate. That has been done twice by Labour in the 1960s and the 1970s. There was no constitutional outrage, debate or scandal about it. Harold Wilson did it twice and nobody seemed to worry very much. People said that it was necessary to have a coalition to deal with the deficit. Leaving aside the fact that we have not yet properly dealt with the deficit anyway, a Conservative Government could have got on with dealing with the deficit from day one. They had the mandate to do so, and they could have renewed that mandate after a year or 18 months, and we would now have a much stronger Government.

We find ourselves stuck in a lowest common denominator straitjacket, which no one voted for—

[Mr Allen]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the annunciator appears to be broken. We are on the hatred of Liberal Democrats and the coalition debate, and I am waiting for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act debate. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ensure that the annunciator gets repaired, so we can carry on with the House’s business?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate the eloquence and humour with which the hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it is of course not a point of order.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am coming to an end. I have put it several times to our beloved Prime Minister that we should end this coalition, which is haemorrhaging our support, and the support of the Liberal Democrats. He says that he cannot do it because, under this ridiculous Act of Parliament, he could not call a general election, and the Leader of the Opposition might be in power by teatime. I do not know whether or not that is right, but there is a certain rigidity in the system. We should end this coalition and go to the people at an appropriate moment.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is a constitutional aberration. It was cobbled together without pre-legislative review or proper national debate. It could and does result in zombie-government in the latter part of the term. Indeed it could conceivably lead to a Belgian situation of weak Government and weak Parliament. As is found around the world, it could and does lead to rigidity and angry calls by a disaffected public to extra-parliamentary activity. It actually leads to the growth of extremist fringe parties, as we are finding in our own country.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I was about to end, but I will give way one last time.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend pray in aid the example of Ukraine, which has parliamentary elections this weekend? It had a fixed-term Parliament, but the President has called what he has described as early parliamentary elections.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Indeed, and dangerous situations can often be the result of fixed-terms.

We could see, as a result of this Act, an unprecedented long period without any Government at all. This is a bad Act. It was not thought through and it is not in our traditions. It should be reviewed and repealed.

12:15

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I am delighted that we can now come on to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 debate, and I am pleased to open the proceedings on that discussion. I want people to watch our proceedings in Parliament, but, privately, I hope that they are doing other things—perhaps going out with their families—because sometimes we can be incredibly embarrassing in this House. It was only three or four weeks ago that the Union nearly fell apart. I am glad that the numbers were what they were at the end, but there was a moment when all of us thought that the Union—the United Kingdom—would be split asunder. It may still do so if we do not deliver properly on the package.

One would think that everything in the garden was rosy, apart from the fact that some would like to revert to those great old days that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) described. I am talking about those days when we had an empire, homosexuality was illegal, we could slaughter people around the globe, we always had a Prime Minister who told us what to do, and we could go hunting, shooting and fishing in the right seasons. Those were the days indeed. Of course there are many colleagues who long for that degree of exclusivity and privacy, but there are some of us for whom times have changed. We believe that we must do better, and that joining the family of democratic nations in having the people know when a general election is to take place and when the Executive can be replaced is one of the hallmarks of a modern democracy. We are not yet there, but we have made progress in some areas in recent years. One such area is having a fixed-term Parliament.

I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for many years, that this idea that somehow this Parliament, rather than the Executive, is the creature that runs the nation is the fundamental misapprehension and fundamental flaw in his argument; it is mythology. This is not the Executive. This is not even a body that effectively holds the Executive to account, so to say that things should go back to the way they were does not alter some of those truths, which we all need to consider as parliamentarians first and foremost and as members of the Executive, members who want to be in the Executive, and members who have been in the Executive. That so-called truth is a mythology, and I hope that during this debate we can explore why having a fixed term—having some openness about how long a Parliament or a Government is—will be one of the things that lead people outside to say that at least it looks like we are getting it.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s concern at the lamentable way in which Parliament fails to hold the Executive—of whatever Government—to account. Obviously, he supports the notion of a fixed-term Parliament, but does he think that it is right that the Act ensures that that cannot be changed? The Act reinforces this whole push towards coalition Government almost irrespective of public wishes because there has to be a two-thirds majority for getting rid of them. Does he not think that an old-fashioned straight majority would have been the correct way for a fixed-term Parliament to operate?

[Mr Allen]

Sadly, one cannot always bring about democratic change through a rational process; it is often a matter of seizing opportunities. In this case a coalition Government came together and it was helpful—there is no question about this—to have a fixed term, because otherwise there would have been votes of censure and the Government could have fallen at any moment over the past four and a half years.

This might sound strange coming from the Opposition Benches, but I must say that I think history will judge the coalition, however painful and bruising it might have been for the partners, to have governed, or at least administered, in a way that will have surprised many people, particularly if we think back to 2010. There are wounds and difficulties, of course, and I do not seek to underplay them, but a coalition was formed and governance in this country, much to my regret at one level, has continued, one could argue, in a relatively civilized way.

We are where we are, and it would not be democratic to take the power away from Parliament and restore a power that allows a Prime Minister alone to decide the date of a general election. It is yet another strong Executive power that this House should stand up and say should not be restored. There are other Executive powers in this highly centralised democracy that we should be looking to next to ensure that they are made properly democratic, or at least that Governments are held to account for their use.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

I will give way first to my distinguished colleague from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

[Mr Chope]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the argument is essentially between those who believe in rigidity, as he does, and those of us on the Government Benches who believe in flexibility? In a sense, is not that illustrated by what happened in Scotland? Had the Scots voted to leave the Union, the Prime Minister would surely have been required to call a general election, but the Fixed-term Parliaments Act would have prevented him from having that discretion.

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Gentleman is known for being a rather floppy and flexible individual, and perhaps I am renowned for being inflexible in the multitude of compromises I have attempted to make over my political career to secure at least some small reforms in our democracy.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, as usual. He is right to say that this is a restriction on the power of the Executive, but I think that he is slightly wrong to say that in this Parliament power has not become more centralised. I think his book was called “The First President” or “President Blair” or something along those lines. Surely he thinks that guillotining and the Whips Offices are doing much more to give power to the Executive than a fixed-term Parliament.

[Mr Allen]

I am not saying that it is the fixed term that has helped create a lively Parliament; it is Members of Parliament who have done that, by carving out a niche and exploiting the difficulties of coalition Government, and more credit to them for doing so. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who is foremost among those pushing back the envelope—I congratulate him on that—that what the Executive giveth, the Executive can take away. Were we to return to a one-party Government, of whichever party, I guarantee that they would seek to roll back some of the gains that he and just about every colleague in the Chamber today have played a part in securing, bringing greater responsibility to Parliament. I warn colleagues here today that the tide will go out very rapidly indeed. We now have, for the first time in parliamentary history, Select Committee Chairs elected by secret ballot and by the whole House, as in my case, and that could easily become a thing of the past. In a one-party Government, the Prime Minister would instruct people to clamp down on dissent and nonconformity.

Similarly, colleagues elected to Select Committees by secret ballot and by party, such as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), could be under threat. Difficult and awkward customers of the sort I revel in dealing with in my Committee, many of whom are in the Chamber today, will be the first casualties. I say that not because I am trying to scare them, but because I used to be in the Whips Office and had to take Members out of Select Committees and try to get compliant Chairs elected. Sadly, I have been there, done that—I am the gamekeeper turned poacher, and possibly turned gamekeeper again.

The idea that we have cracked it and that we now have a Parliament that in a one-party Government will be as frisky as this one is misleading. We have to protect the small gains we have made in recent years and build upon them, rather than regressing to the good old days when we used to allow Prime Ministers the unprecedented power in a democracy of deciding the date of an election.

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

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the power of the Executive. Does he agree that the constitution should be established in the best interests not of the Prime Minister, but of the country as a whole, particularly in circumstances in which we are having to borrow a lot of money on the money markets to fund the deficit, which means the stability that arises from the Prime Minister not having the power to call an election anytime he feels like it is in the interests of the country as a whole?

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Gentleman, who speaks from the Liberal Democrat Benches, would have been terribly blackguarded by his coalition partners in the debate this morning. He is making up for that and makes some intelligent points with which I wholly agree.

What I think the people outside this place listening to the debate would find incredibly difficult is the idea that, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said before leaving his place, we would not apply this to the devolved Administrations. We would not say to those who run Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, “Just have an election whenever you feel like it, for whatever purpose. We’ll happily give you that Executive power.” We have Executive power in No. 10 Downing street, and very rarely is it given away. It was not given away lightly, but on this occasion it was given away on calculation. We must retain it so that Parliament has at least some leverage and certainty so that it can fulfil its duty of holding Governments to account.

It is similar to the situation in local government. Imagine the leader of a council having the power to decide when local government elections take place. Consider the idea that the President of the United States could wake up one morning and say, “There’s some bad economic news coming down the tube in six months’ time, so I’m going to go for a snap election.” The President would then face prison or incarceration, because that would be unconstitutional and illegal. I suspect that the straitjacket would be the option of first resort were that to happen, whether in the US, France or any of our fellow democracies who figured this out a long time ago. Montesquieu figured it out in the 18th century when he wrote about the separation of powers. Given the flexibility we have created for ourselves in this House, perhaps we will come to that conclusion in the not-too-distant future.

[Kevin Brennan]

I caution against being too obsessed with the American system, because it is held in very low regard by American voters, largely because of the amount of money involved in their politics, and one of the reasons for that is the frequency of elections to the House of Representatives and the resulting gridlock. Does my hon. Friend agree that choosing a period of five years, which was done for the convenience of the Executive, whether a coalition or not, is far too long, not least given that the average length of Parliaments in the last century was three years and 10 months? Should not we go to four years, which would also stop the clashes with the devolved Administrations?

[Mr Allen]

We should of course be very careful about taking the American example lock, stock and barrel, although we should learn from other democracies. I also think that my hon. Friend should be a little careful about discussing the low regard in which politicians are held in America. Many people will have been watching the debate today with incredulity, given the way in which some Members spoke a little earlier.

As for whether the period should be four years or five, it is the first time that we have gone through this process. My anxiety relates only to practical politics. I fear that if the question of the period were opened up for review, some Members from whom we have heard today would seize the opportunity to hand power back, rather fawningly, to No. 10 Downing street. One wonders whether there would be as much enthusiasm for that if the Prime Minister were a member of a different political party from that of the mover of the motion.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

I give way to my very distinguished Select Committee colleague.

[Mr Turner]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could assist me by explaining what would happen if, for instance, we had lost the referendum in Scotland. In those circumstances, would there not have been an obligation to step up to the public and say, “I have failed, so someone else must take over”, and would it not be a bad thing if everyone were simply moved along one step and the job were put it in the hands of another person, with no election?

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case. In fact, he has unwittingly made a powerful case for a written constitution, which would prevent that from happening. What we have, however, is a convention, and, like it or not, conventions mean what the Executive say—rather than, as we are finding now in relation to going to war in Syria, creeping something through the House and reinventing the convention. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of the day would probably find, in giving way, that the Deputy would be appointed from within the coalition or from within the individual party. The only way of putting a stop to that is to have clarity, so that everyone watching at home has the rule book, the boxing rules, as it were. I am not referring to the fighters in the ring, but there should be a framework that we can all understand, and I am afraid that that is not the case.

Ultimately, even under the current legislation, it would be possible to dissolve Parliament if a vote expressing a lack of confidence in the existing Government were carried by two thirds. After 14 days, there would be a general election. However, those are extraordinary circumstances. We are trying to build a democracy in which everyone out there knows the rules.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

May I repeat the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)? We are not going to convince the hon. Gentleman in regard to fixed-term Parliaments, but will he at least acknowledge that if we had had a proper national debate on the issue, we would obviously have decided on a four-year term, as in the case of the American presidency, rather than a five-year term?

[Mr Allen]

I believe that—particularly if there is a little less game-playing and a little more consensus-building—a five-year or a 10-year Parliament and longer-term planning make a lot of sense when we are faced with issues that are not about tomorrow’s newspapers, but about the future of the planet, the future of our children and the future of our economy.



Some of our colleagues are new to the House—I except the hon. Member for Gainsborough—and assume that things have always been like this. Some colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), are very new to the House. They are probably thinking, “Why on earth are they talking about this ancient history?” Well, some of us remember the ancient history.

Having been in the House for some time, I am aware—as are you, Madam Deputy Speaker—of the paralysis that grips a Government when there is speculation about when a general election can take place. We have all lived through it. There is a long period of under-achievement, of anxiety, of shuffles, of the civil service not knowing when the general election will be, of appalling speculation in the media, and of threats by Back Benchers who say that they will do this, that or the other. That, to me, is bad governance and bad administration.

A fixed term brings clarity. It means all of us saying, “Let us get on with our job.” It does not mean saying to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the House will appoint you for a term but it may throw you out at any moment, or press speculation may end your wonderful career. Of course, no one operates like that in the real world. A degree of certainty will end much of the paralysis and speculation that has been so damaging to our politics for many years.

[Mark Field]

I do not entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about uncertainty in regard to election dates. However—this may be because there is currently a coalition Government, and because all the parties are going into the next election telling the electorate that they intend to win and have a manifesto that will enable them to win—an element of paralysis has clearly set in even at this early stage. As we know, there will be an election in May. I think that, in the event of another indeterminate election result, we should be relaxed about the possibility that we will not return for the Queen’s Speech until early or mid-June next year. There may well be an interval of several weeks. That would not necessarily constitute paralysis—it would be possible for government to continue—but Parliament would not be able to sit until we recognised what sort of coalition would be taking the place of the current Government.

[Mr Allen]

The benefit of our having a final year and knowing it is a final year is that we can plan for how we can sensibly use that final year. I absolve my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) of this, but is all the nonsense of “It will be a zombie Parliament unless we pack the last year full of inconsequential legislation, so that we can we pretend that we are macho and running the country” the best that we can do?

My Committee has produced two reports on this issue. We have studied it in great detail, and have heard from highly expert witnesses. We concluded that the fifth year of a Parliament could, because we would know that it would be the last year, be very different culturally—although not this first time round, because we are not used to it. Let us return to the default position of the old dogfight! Let us all slam each other over the Dispatch Box! But perhaps we could use the last year very constructively, rather than entering a state of paralysis or conducting ourselves in our normal, conventional way—often disgracefully, in the eyes of the public.

[Sir William Cash]

Did the hon. Gentleman’s Committee take evidence from Lord Norton of Louth? If so, can he remember what conclusions Lord Norton reached?

[Mr Allen]

I am afraid that I cannot remember, but Lord Norton of Louth—who is a very distinguished Member of the other place—gives evidence to us regularly, and I am confident that if we did not take oral evidence from him, he would have submitted some written evidence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being able to recite it. No doubt he can do so.

Let me return to the points made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). We can plan our lives here better. We, Members of Parliament—not the Government—can plan our lives better, in the parliamentary interest. That means not being told what to do. It does not mean being told how wonderful it is to be able to have a debate of our own choosing on days such as this. Aren’t we lucky to be able to have a couple of debates every so often? Aren’t we lucky to be allowed out into the playground? That is better than being told every second of our waking day what agenda is being set by the Government, and hearing the nonsense that somehow Parliament is deciding stuff. Of course it is the Government who are deciding—but, on this occasion, we have made a little bit of an inroad on behalf of Parliament.

Those were very good points, and I shall be sure to write them up and pass them to my local Member of Parliament; so the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster can expect a letter in the morning.

Let me explain a little about the importance of what a fixed-term Parliament allows us to do, first as a Parliament, secondly as an Administration and a Government, and thirdly for the electorate. What does a fixed-term Parliament allow us to do as Members of this House, and as members of Select Committees and other institutions in the House? For one thing, it allows us to have a sensible legislative programme. Until the advent of the fixed-term Parliament—and I look forward to the legislative programme of the next one, because by then we shall have learnt a few lessons—it was the same every time. An election was won, and no one was sure how long the Parliament would last. It was a case of “Let us stuff the big important Bills through the House at the earliest opportunity.” Then there will be a ton of Second Readings before the Christmas of the new Parliament, things will be pushed through and often written very poorly, and later on we will have a period in the doldrums when things are drifting along because most of the legislation has already gone through.

That is anathema to what I suspect virtually all colleagues in the House would support me on, which is pre-legislative scrutiny. A fixed-term Parliament allows us, for the first time ever, to plan our legislative programme, because we know when the beginning, middle and end are. Things that require more work and more detailed analysis by the civil service to produce a draft can be prioritised—really important, practical things that can involve the British public and bring them with us. The Scottish example has shown what fantastic accidental glory democracy can deliver us. Imagine if we planned our next employment Bill and talked to working people and employers. Imagine if we really thought carefully about what a climate change Bill could do three years hence. Imagine if we had a Parliament talking to the electorate because it knew how it could plan its legislative programme. What a different Parliament it would be if we decided to go that way—a Parliament that might earn people’s respect.

Pre-legislative scrutiny would allow this House to present a Bill and say, “Here’s our draft, let’s have a Second Reading and agree the principles, and then we’ll give it to an expert committee of colleagues of all parties to look at for a serious period”—three, four, five or six months—“to really get to the bottom of this and get the evidence together.” A Government who were listening could then enable that to happen—not once, because we have made a persuasive argument on the Floor of the House and won a vote, but as a matter of course because that is the way we conduct our business. We would then be in great danger of producing good law that did not require our coming back the next year to put right the things that were got wrong because we did not take our time or that needed a thousand amendments from the other place because our legislative process was so poor.

[Richard Drax]

South Dorset (Con): First, there was no pre-legislative scrutiny, as far as I know, of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Secondly, in the wonderful, mythological world that the hon. Gentleman lives in, he seems to forget that there is such a thing as politics. We do not always get on in this place—we disagree—and that is extremely good for democracy. I do not think the wonderful world he is portraying actually exists in this place—thank God, because nor should it.

[Mr Allen]

It is hard to pick the substance out of that intervention, but I will do my best. This is the first time that we have had a fixed term; the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, so he may not know that. When we have gone through the process once and come to it again, I hope we will have learned a few lessons. It gives us time to plan, whereas a system where there could be a general election at the drop of a hat means that we are in a state of febrile suspense about whether we are going to go to the electorate. Rightly, that is the first thing on our minds, rather than holding Government to account and perhaps developing an understanding of why Parliament is a separate institution from Government. Should the hon. Gentleman be re-elected and we have a four or five-year term, perhaps he will be able to find more time to understand some of those things a little more deeply.

Let me go back to how Parliament will benefit from this situation. Imagine a situation where each Select Committee has the power and the drive, and perhaps even the personnel, of a Committee like the Public Accounts Committee so that it could look at value for money, seriously examine Government accounts, and seriously examine accounting officers—and possibly even Government Ministers. Very few, if any, Select Committees other than the PAC can do that. Imagine what we could then do in terms of our constitutional role outlined by William Gladstone, who said that our role in Parliament is not to run the country but to hold to account those who do. It would be a massive step forward. People at home would say, “These guys are really earning their crust. They are not just shouting at each other on a Wednesday afternoon—they are figuring out how to save me, a taxpayer, a lot of money, how to make our services work better, how to involve people, and how to get ownership of the things we have in our society.”

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says about the benefits of Select Committees, pre-legislative scrutiny and all the other things that we want to develop, but the pre-supposition of his argument is that the people elect a Government who have the power to continue for a fixed term—in other words, they have a majority and can maintain it to carry out a legislative programme for a fixed term. In the present circumstances, with a multi-party system emerging and the two Government parties unevenly balanced, is that going to happen?

[Mr Allen]

We do not contrive a system for each result—we have to do it on the basis of principle. The principle that we know when a Parliament begins and ends is very important, not just for us here in our own cosy little world but for people outside. It is important for the electorate to understand why we are doing what we are doing, and that principle allows that to happen.

My Select Committee took evidence from other Select Committee Chairs, none of whom said that they wanted to go back to the old system. They all said, as I did as a Select Committee Chair, “This enables us to have greater planning ability, even within our own Select Committee.” I will give one example from my own Committee. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, as one of its most important members before you came to exalted high office late on and robbed us of one of our main contributors, my Committee spent four years looking at whether we should devise a written constitution. We considered what other options there were; conducted a very detailed investigation through an external body, King’s college London; took copious amounts of evidence; and carefully produced a document that everyone can be proud of and that will stand the test of time. That is not possible if we think that in a couple of years’ time there might be a general election when Members, rightly, will want to be in their constituencies and so on. These things allow us to plan our work, as MPs and Select Committees, much more easily.

We also improve public debate if we allow people outside to see what we are doing—our measures, our policies, our options—and thereby engage with people. Rather than just being a glorified electoral college to elect a Prime Minister some time in the early hours of general election day, we can get a real role in life as a Parliament and start to produce good legislation and better law, and to do things that the public will be proud of us for in holding Government to account. We would not lose Bills in the “wash up” but be able to plan effectively. A lot of people in this House worked on the Sex and Relationships Education Bill, which, as finally drafted, had the support of most people. That Bill was lost because a general election was called. People outside who had an interest in young people growing up with fully rounded capabilities and full knowledge so that they could raise good families of their own found it inexplicable that Parliament could act like that.

The next area I want to turn to—I will try to be a little more brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, since you have glowered at me—is Government and the civil service. I had the privilege of being sent by my Select Committee to each of the permanent secretaries in Whitehall. To a man and a woman, they basically said the same thing, including the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood—that planning, long-termism and sequencing had improved markedly since people knew when the beginning and end of the Parliament were. That allows the civil service to address the comprehensive spending review and say, “We know when the next Government will be coming in, so we will have things ready for them. Perhaps they will want to do things differently, if they are not another coalition Government.” That also helps with budgeting.

That mindset goes down the pipe from the civil service and Government to local government, which then has a sense of the expenditure model it could operate over the next five to 10 years. It also gives our national health service an idea of when to plan hospitals and train doctors and nurses, which are long-term activities. It allows the civil service and Government to get to grips with those things.

The voluntary sector is also affected. I speak as someone who was plagued by not knowing from one year to the next where the next cheque was coming from or how much it would be worth. People would be fired at Christmas in the hope that we could put them back to work on 5 April. What a stupid way to run a system—making it up as you go along. Paralysis at one level means chaos at another, all because we cannot do what every business, local government and president in western democracy does as a result of knowing the beginning and the end of a governing period and how to plan life within it. Finally, this also applies to the electorate. I hope that sensible electors will view everything I have talked about as evidence that we can be more rational and more fit to govern.

At the end of the day, the key things are not those I have listed, but the fact that knowing the date of a general election, how a Prime Minister is elected and how a Member of Parliament gets the honour of the job the public give them is not a gift from an over-centralised Executive who are used to running an empire, but a right of which every citizen in our democracy should be aware. Those are the benefits of having a fixed-term Parliament.

I will talk briefly about what should happen in the last year of a fixed-term Parliament. The last year can be used not in a conventional way but in order to say, “Yes, this is the year we are going to run up to a general election. Can we involve people and have a public education drive? Can we, as parties, perhaps with the help of the Office for Budget Responsibility or other institutions, cost all our programmes?” We could have that debate a year out from a general election, rather than the mud-slinging that happens in the last few days leading up to a general election, where one party says, “You’re spending too much,” another says, “You’re not spending enough,” and another says, “We’re going to raise money, but you’re borrowing too much.” Let us try to work all that out. At the end of the day, we might surprise ourselves. Despite all the rhetoric, there can be common ground on a lot of stuff. The least we can do in Parliament—not the Government; leave them in Whitehall and No. 10 for now—is to figure out what the key problems are for the nation on whose behalf we are meant to parlay.

That is a different approach, but we also need to keep this Government to their promise of creating a House business committee to enable us to have the time to do those serious political activities, rather than have the same old dogfight. We as a Parliament could have a real impact on the main parties’ manifestos by creating an evidence base for policy, figuring out what works for that policy and making sure it is properly costed.

I hope that is a convincing argument for the need for clear planning and accurate budgeting and for involving the British people in our Parliament. We need to be confident that we are better than just doing what whoever runs the Government tells us to do or just opposing them from the Opposition Benches. We have gained a lot, but we can do even more. The Prime Minister committed to a review of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 in 2020. By then I hope we will have made progress, built on the Act and gone from strength to strength. I hope that will lead us to achieve two things that may just turn the tide and result in the electorate looking at us as something other than pariahs: better government and honest politics.

12:54

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

This is an important debate and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) opened it. The subject needs to be aired by this House. I do not necessarily see the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 as the work of the forces of evil or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats. On the other hand, the alternative of the previous system is not necessarily a panacea.

In practical terms, if the coalition had fallen apart at some point, the Prime Minister would probably have come to the House and proposed a Dissolution, and I would have been extremely surprised if the Leader of the Opposition had not agreed with the proposition of having a general election to sort out the situation. The need for a two-thirds majority principally means that the Conservative party and the Labour party could conspire to have a Dissolution on a date on which they both agree. Essentially, it does not prevent a general election from taking place; it just means that there would have to be a degree of consultation between both major parties.

I do not think that fixed-term Parliaments are necessarily a good thing, for some of the reasons that have already been discussed. I think there comes a time—four years is probably long enough—when a Government ought to try to get a new mandate from the electorate. If we look back at history, we will see that at one point we had seven-year Parliaments and then the term was reduced to five years. We have always taken a pragmatic approach to general elections. We missed a general election in 1940, for the very understandable reason that we were doing other things at the time. That was quite reasonable and one must remember that that Parliament ran all the way to 1945.

Whenever the United Kingdom has had early general elections—I think we ought to focus on early general elections, rather than those that have taken place towards the end of a term after four, four and a half, or five years—it was usually because the electorate gave an indecisive result and, for the sake of good government, the political parties wanted the electorate to reconsider through another general election. At the end of the day, apart from holding the Government to account, Parliament is about ensuring that there is a Government, who have to deliver the health service, education and pensions. Of course, the 2010 Government had to manage the British economy, which has to be managed in a particular way. Those are very important issues.

Governments have gone early on two occasions in my lifetime. The Wilson Government of February 1974 went and got a small majority that October, and the 1964 Labour Government were re-elected in 1966, having initially got a very small majority.

[John Hemming]

Obviously, we have had fixed-term Parliaments for a long time; it is just that the Prime Minister had the power to call an early election. Who does my hon. Friend believe should have the power to decide to have an early election?

[Mr Syms]

Actually, the power to call a general election is a poisoned chalice for a Prime Minister: if they win it is great, but if they lose they generally get the chop because they made the wrong decision. Under the old system, Conservative campaign headquarters told its candidates that there were only so many Thursdays—which, by convention, we used—and only so many days of the year, because of summer days and autumn, on which we could have a general election. When it comes down to it, there are only four or five dates a Prime Minister can choose from. A Prime Minister has the seals of office from the Queen and the responsibility to discharge a Government programme. If someone has to decide, I would prefer it to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. He has spoken of the poisoned chalice, but what about Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and 1987, and Tony Blair in 2001 and 2005? Is he suggesting that partisan considerations were not at play in the choice to go after four rather than five years in those four cases?

[Mr Syms]

I am perfectly sure that, in normal politics, some incumbents have a slight advantage. Clearly, both Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair used it to the maximum. One election was delayed by foot and mouth, so events can intervene and cause a delay, if everyone agrees to it. At the time, there was consensus across the House that it would have been impossible to have a general election. I remember driving through Devon and seeing pyres of the carcases of animals being burned. That showed the British system being flexible to deal with something that emerged very quickly.

[John Hemming]

I thank my hon. Friend for his previous answer. He said the effective test of whether the Prime Minister’s decision to have an election was a good one was whether the Prime Minister got elected, and that the test was measured by the political party. In essence, such a decision is driven by the party interest, not the public interest.

[Mr Syms]

There is an element of truth in that, but to go back to my earlier point, if a Prime Minister dissolves Parliament and loses, they usually end up losing the leadership of their party. Harold Wilson was unusual: he won three elections out of the four he contested, but survived after losing—by surprise—in 1970. He of course chose the date in 1970, but that was after a long period during which his party thought that it would win. In reality, most Prime Ministers go when they think they will win. Most of them hang on when they think they will lose, in the hope of something turning up, which it normally does not, and five-year Parliaments can be tortuous and difficult.

I believe we should go back to the previous system of having some flexibility in when general elections occur. In reality, they normally occur some time in the fourth and fifth year of a Parliament.

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Mr Syms]

I will give way for the last time.

[John Hemming]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that a key priority of this Parliament has been to sort out the finances, but uncertainty creates greater instability in the financial markets. If we had to pay another 1%, it would cost us about £10 billion or more a year. Does he think that that is a reasonable price for the taxpayer to pay for giving back a power over general elections to the Prime Minister?

[Mr Syms]

One thing on which I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who introduced the debate in a very reasonable fashion, is that we may in future have more coalition Governments than some of us would like. If we look at the pattern of politics, we can clearly see that more people are willing to vote for a range of parties, which in itself brings challenges for the major political parties. It may well be that fixed-term Parliaments are used as a device when other coalitions are formed in future.

I hope that there will be a clear overall majority for the Conservative party when there is an election—or that there is a clear majority among the electorate—but if there is no such majority and, to return to my earlier point, someone has to run the economy, interest rates need to be maintained, restrictions on public expenditure are still needed and tough decisions have to be made, coalitions will sometimes be the best vehicle.

I have always taken a very pragmatic view of the British constitution. It has shown that it can be amended, changed and challenged by what is thrown at it. The remarkable thing about 2010 was that there was an indecisive general election but a strong Government were formed to deal with the very difficult issues we faced. Those issues will still need to be dealt with in the next Parliament.

I simply point out that it would be better to have flexibility in the system. At some stage, we will find ourselves in the situation where a general election is the solution to dealing with the problems. Given some of the current polls, with both major parties on percentage shares in the 30s, one possible result would be for each to have between 260 and 280 seats and for neither to be able to form a coalition with any other party, and that would lead us into grand coalition territory. We had that in February 1974, when the Conservatives conspired to allow the Labour party to govern until there was another general election. It would be unusual but not impossible to have a situation in which no Government could be sustained. In such a case, rather than having some absurd coalition with both major parties getting together but agreeing on nothing, it would be sensible for the electorate at some point to get the chance to decide which party or coalition of parties they wished to run the country.

The coalition has not done a bad job. It was necessary, and it has probably helped the British economy. Having fixed-term Parliaments was one part of the deal. That was perfectly respectable politics, because there was a need to reassure the junior partner in the coalition. However, being conservative constitutionally, I rather hope that we can go back to the previous system. If we do, it will be the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), if he is the Prime Minister after the next election, to decide about the following election. If he then made the wrong decision, he would have to pay the consequences for that.

13:03

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I support the proposal to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and his colleagues on raising the issue. It seems to me that we should have much shorter Parliaments. It is possible to have fixed terms, but there has to be a right or an ability to end a Parliament in circumstances such as war, economic crisis or disaster. We can therefore have a term that is fixed, but the period should be shorter.

The best evidence against five-year Parliaments—frankly, five years is too long—is the long, slow death rattle of this Parliament. If Members want to see a monument to the failure of five-year Parliaments, they should look at what is happening now. In effect, this Parliament and this Government did all they were going to do in their first three years. Most of that was wrong of course, but it was done during those first three years. Frankly, we are now just hanging on in this House with nothing particular to do. It reminds me of the old Bing Crosby song:

“We’re busy doing nothing,

Working the whole day through,

Trying to find lots of things not to do”.

The attendance at this extremely important constitutional debate shows that Members do not particularly want to be in the Chamber; they would rather be in their constituencies fighting an election campaign. That is what, at the end of this Parliament, we are really doing: if we are not fighting an election campaign, we are busy throwing custard pies at each other.

At this moment in this Parliament, the Government have got to the end of their tether. There has never been a better moment to use Oliver Cromwell’s words—they apply to all of us—when he dismissed the Long Parliament:

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

But this agony now has to be prolonged, with the farce of pretending to do things when we are just electioneering and throwing trivia at each other, until the end of March, before there is a renewal in the election in May. This Parliament is conclusive proof that five years is too long.

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) said that four years might be reasonable, but emphasised the need for continuity in economic policy. The usual claim for a five-year Parliament is that that gives the Government time to implement their policies, but this Parliament has given this Government time to change every policy that they started out with. We started out with “Hug a hoodie”, but that turned out to be cutting benefits for young people. We started out with “Hug a Husky” and “Save the environment”, but that ended up as “green crap.” We started out with “Support the European Union”, but we now use every possible occasion to provoke dissent and argument within the European Union. We started out with “Immigrants welcome”, but it is now, “Keep everybody out.” We started out with “We’re all in it together”, but that has ended up with putting the penalties and pains on the poor, while rewarding the rich.

Even continuity of economic policy, which is claimed to be the most sacrosanct element during this Parliament, has not been provided by a five-year term. The only continuity of economic policy to which this Government can lay claim—apart from cuts to everything, or slash and burn, which is the Government’s only long-term economic plan—has been produced not by them, but by the Bank of England. Frankly, the independent Bank of England has saved the Government. We now have a recovery, but if interest rates are kept flat to the floor, as they have been for the six years since the crisis, and if money is printed at a record rate—through quantitative easing, we have printed £375 billion—there is bound, at some stage, to be a recovery. That is not the Government’s long-term economic plan. Their plan was to cut and slash and burn everything and to roll back the state. The Bank of England’s management of the economy has produced the only successful long-term economic policy. Therefore, the argument for long-term economic policies also fails.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is too hopeful about long parliamentary terms. He mentioned five-year and even 10-year Parliaments, which caused me to shudder in my seat. What is the best term for a Parliament? I do not want it to be thought that, now that I am leaving, I want to cut everybody else’s joy and pleasure by reducing the parliamentary term to three years, but I would like to do so. I have said that consistently. I proposed it when the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was discussed in 2011.

[John Hemming]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case for shorter Parliaments. The question is who should make the decision. Should the term be fixed or should the Prime Minister be given back the power to make the decision purely on party interest, thereby costing everyone a lot of money?

[Austin Mitchell]

There could be a combination of the two. That happens in Australia and New Zealand. In New Zealand, there is a fixed three-year term, but the Prime Minister can call an election earlier. The Executive has to have that right and power. Most Governments work out their three-year term and do not go earlier. Some go earlier to seize a particular moment or because of an emergency. We have to give the Government that power, otherwise we will have the situation that Germany found itself in when the Social Democratic party had to engineer its own defeat in Parliament before it could get an election.

[John Hemming]

Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Prime Minister alone should be able to make that decision, rather than Parliament through a majority?

[Austin Mitchell]

In saying the Prime Minister, I meant the Government. It has to be a collective decision. It will effectively be a party decision, although in my experience most of the elections that have been called by the Labour party have not been party decisions, because I have not been consulted. I am not sure whether the Liberal Democrats are consulted on such matters.

[John Hemming]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the confirmation that it would be a party decision taken in the party interest. Should it not be a decision that is taken in the public interest?

[Austin Mitchell]

I think that that would be difficult to arrange. It is a political decision that is taken by the Executive. In a democratic party, I would hope that the Executive would consult the party. That did not happen before the elections that were called by my party when we were in power, but I felt that it should have done. Jim Callaghan certainly should have consulted me, because if he had called an election in October 1978, we probably would have won. He tended not to listen to my advice, however loudly it was put. That was a failure of Back-Bench power.

I am in favour of a three-year term. At a pinch, I would accept a four-year term. It should be a fixed term, with the ability to call an early election in extreme or difficult circumstances. If we had that, we would not have to have all the silliness of the recall legislation that we were dealing with on Tuesday. I have never known a more stupid Bill than the Recall of MPs Bill. I was not given the opportunity to vote against it, because there was no vote. All parties are grovelling before the electorate by saying, “Let us sacrifice ourselves and throw MPs to the wolves.” There would be no need for recall if we had a three-year term, because by the time the machinery of recall had cranked into operation, the three years would be over and the electorate would be able to turn everybody out and make a new choice.

I am being moderate by calling for short, triennial Parliaments. I am old enough to have been a Chartist, I suppose, but I am not espousing annual Parliaments, as the Chartists did. A three-year Parliament accords with the mood of the public, as we read it in the major polls and surveys. There is an alienated mood. People want to be heard. They are angry and upset. They want to have an influence, but they feel that MPs are not listening and that Parliament does not represent them.

[Mr Allen]

Will my hon. Friend just beware and look across the Atlantic, where there are two-year terms? The people in the Houses that are elected on that basis are permanently campaigning. On one level, that might be a good thing, but because it means that they are permanently having to raise money for their election, it might not be regarded as progressive.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am arguing not for a two-year term, but for a three-year term. In any case, there is a big difference. Although my hon. Friend is right that members of the House of Representatives have to raise endless amounts of money to fight elections, that would not be necessary in our system because we provide free television adverts for the parties. The money that members of the House of Representatives raise mainly goes to the television networks to put on attack adverts about the other side. That would not be necessary here.

However, I am arguing not for a two-year term, but merely for a shorter term. That is in accord with the public mood, because the people want influence—they want a say. They feel that MPs are not listening and that we are in it for ourselves. They feel that decisions are being taken on immigration, economic matters and all sorts of things, over which they have no control. They want to be heard. The only effective way of ensuring that they are heard, that I know of, is to have more frequent elections. That is why I am in favour of a three-year term. We are too remote from the people if we have long, five-year terms.

If we had the fixed three-year terms for which I am arguing, it would be necessary to make two concomitant changes. First, we would have to limit the tenure of the Prime Minister. In recent experience, at the end of six or seven years, Prime Ministers are barmy, have delusions of grandeur or even competence, or are just brain-dead and exhausted. A seven-year limit on prime ministerial power would be a good idea.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has much more faith in the two-party system than I have, because his argument presupposes strong government for a long period. I am worried that the days of one-party government are gone. We must not forget that in the ’40s and ’50s, 90% of people voted for one of the two parties that could form a Government; now, the proportion is only two thirds. The system is crumbling. The parties are losing membership and are hollowed out. They are controlled by small coteries and no longer represent the two great divisions in our society.

The main parties are weakening and we are developing a multi-party politics. However much we attack UKIP, it represents a point of view. Whatever we say about the Liberal Democrats—Tory Members have been scathing about the poor Liberal Democrats, who have left sulking, and about their participation in government—they represent a section of the community. We also have the Scottish nationalists and the Greens. Multi-party politics cannot work without proportional representation. The system has to be changed.

The change that introduced proportional representation in New Zealand has been very successful. It ensures that all legislation has the support of a majority of the parties in Parliament. That is desirable, because it means that the public are consulted and have a say, and through their parties they influence the legislation. [Interruption.] I am winding towards what I would hopefully call a peroration, so I would rather not give way at this moment. If we have a change of that nature for shorter Parliaments—and I think we need one—it must be accompanied by proportional representation so that we can work with the system, and so that the multiple views of society are represented in this place, rather than it being the scene for a conflict between just two parties.

13:20

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I opposed the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill before it was enacted at every conceivable point during the procedure for simple reasons. First, I regarded it as fundamentally undemocratic, but I also believed that it will not stand the test of time. The reasons for that have been ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) was a little more circumspect, but he indicated none the less that he is not very happy with the idea of fixed-term Parliaments. I stand by everything I said in 2010, and I believe that those of us who took a stand against the Bill before it was enacted, including in the House of Lords, have been proved right. The Act needs not only to be reviewed, as provided for in section 7, but it ought also to be repealed, and that is why I am speaking in this debate.

The Act was also conceived in very dodgy circumstances. It arose without pre-legislative scrutiny and there was no consultation whatsoever. It was not in our manifesto, but it has profound constitutional implications that I will try to touch on in a moment. It was designed to give succour and support to the coalition. Indeed, it is embedded in the whole concept of the coalition—in a moment I will explain some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) about that, and the bearing that it has not only on this debate but on the whole of this unfortunate episode and this unfortunate Act of Parliament.

I wrote to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, on 10 May 2010, before the coalition was entered into. I urged him in the strongest possible terms not to enter into a formal coalition with the Liberal Democrats, although I explained that if there were to be an informal understanding—perhaps Supply maintenance or whatever —that would be another thing. Hon. Members have already mentioned this, but had we had a minority Government at that time, which I urged on my right hon. Friend, I think we would have won a general election quite soon afterwards, because nobody would have voted for the Labour party under any circumstances. We would have demonstrated that we had a good case by pursuing Conservative policies at that time, and that would, of course, have included not having a fixed-term Parliament.

In a letter in today’s Daily Telegraph I suggest that the time has come for the coalition on the basis that the Liberal Democrats are using their power of votes to frustrate the 304 Conservative Members of Parliament and their Prime Minister on a whole range of important matters of not only constitutional but also political significance. I understand that the referendum is still under discussion, but the Liberal Democrats have clearly indicated that they do not want one. The same applies to the question of boundary changes—the list is long. I do not mean to elaborate on those issues, but I have no faith in the coalition, and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is a vehicle by which it has been given a constitutional support mechanism that, in my judgment, is completely unjustified by subsequent events.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

My hon. Friend says he is concerned about what the Liberals are doing in standing in the way of this Government and Parliament, and particularly of Conservative Members, but the Conservatives are also not allowed to agree with the Labour party on anything. The Government cannot introduce a Bill with the support of the Labour party because the Liberals may veto it.

[Sir William Cash]

That is an important point, and I endorse very much what my hon. Friend has said.

The arrangements in the Act are effectively a stitch-up, just as they were when we first considered the Bill back in 2010. I am glad to note that section 7 contains a requirement for the Prime Minister to hold a review, and only MPs can sit on the Committee that will review this Act. The fact that the Lords had to insist on that provision demonstrates that the Government would not have got the Bill through had they not made that arrangement. The whole thing is effectively in suspension anyway, and it is therefore a natural consequence of the limbo that this unfortunate and unacceptable enactment has put in place that the Act is up for repeal, subject to what is decided in 2020. I believe that it should be reviewed much sooner than that, and I am speaking in this debate because I very much endorse the proposals of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

On 24 November 2010 I said—and I stand by this:

“What does such innovation say about the coalition? It certainly demonstrates its determination to stack the cards firmly in favour of the coalition and the Whips.”

I said the Act was

“not modernising, but is a reactionary measure. It is not progress, but a step backwards, along the primrose path, undermining the constitutional principles that have governed our conventions and been tested over many centuries. The proposal has been conjured out of thin air, for the ruthless purpose of maintaining power irrespective of the consequences…we are supposed to be “Working together in the national interest—”

that was the theme of the moment—

“I fear that on this Bill, on this matter, we are working together against the national interest.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 318-9.]

What are the consequences of what we are now considering? The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is still in place and it should be repealed. Clearly it will not be repealed before the end of this fixed term, but I wish to dwell on a number of points that have been raised. I freely acknowledge that some of these arguments, which have not been given general circulation, were put forward by Lord Norton of Louth. I mentioned him in an intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I hope that his Committee asked Lord Norton for his views, with which I entirely agree, and I will encapsulate them.

Lord Norton makes the point that there are real problems with the 2011 Act, and that fixed-term Parliaments limit rather than enhance voter choice. That is the real problem. I tabled an amendment on the confidence motion and the 14 days—I do not need to go into that now because it was not accepted although the vote was quite close with only about 50 in it. I tabled an amendment to the arrangements that were being proposed at the time, and it certainly evoked an interesting and lively debate. My concern was that the whole parade that would take place within the 14 days, including the confidence motion and its arrangements, would be very much governed by powerful whipping to ensure that people fell into line with what the Government wanted. I was concerned that there would be a constant stream of people walking up and down Whitehall, just as we saw on television screens when the coalition was being put in place, and that the people who would make the final decision on the final wording about the holding of a confidence motion—including an affirmation after 14 days that the House had confidence in the Government—would not only be driven by the Whips, but would exclude the voters. Surely that is the real point. Why are we here? Who elects us? It is not our House of Parliament or our Government: it is the voters’. If things have gone completely awry and there is a case for an early election, as prescribed by the Act, the simple principle is that we should go back to the voters. We should not have a stitch-up within the Government, with the Whips making certain that people vote accordingly.

Fixed-term Parliaments limit rather than enhance voter choice. The outcome of one election cannot be undone until the end of the stipulated term. One Government could collapse and inter-party bargaining could produce another. In those circumstances, voters would be denied the opportunity to endorse what amounts to a new Government. That is a fatal position for us to have adopted. It is so undemocratic. Indeed, an unstable and ineffective Government may stagger on without achieving anything—we heard remarks to that effect from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell).

In 1991, the then Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Waddington put it thus:

“Is it better for a government unable to govern to go to the country to try to obtain a new mandate or for the same government to spend their time fixing up deals in which the unfortunate electorate has no say whatsoever? The people not the parties should decide who governs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1991; Vol. 529, c. 260.]

What wise words. In essence, fixed-term Parliaments rob the system of our hallowed flexibility and limit voter choice. That choice is limited by this Act.

Although the policy of the Liberal Democrats was for four-year Parliaments—I concede that—agreement was reached quickly in May 2010 for a five-year term, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who has written about that period, indicated that the object of the Act was to allow time to implement plans before worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. But five-year terms mean that the voters have fewer opportunities than before to go to the polls, and most post-war Parliaments have not gone their maximum length—now a five-year term is an absolute requirement.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by having a maximum length—which is not the norm, as most Parliaments lasted slightly under four years—the voters are denied the right to say what they think about policies and perhaps change their mind sooner rather than later?

[Sir William Cash]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes huge sense. These are simple questions. It is not an abstract, theoretical argument: it is about the simple question of whether, if the Government are ineffective or have gone badly wrong, they should be kept together with Sellotape because they satisfy the requirements to stay in a coalition—which is itself a stitch-up—under a provision in an Act of Parliament. As I wrote to the Prime Minister in my letter of 10 May 2010, that will work against the interests of voters and, effectively, the national interest.

[Mr Allen]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is making a strong argument for the direct election of the Government, just as we are directly elected? It would be terrible if he were to pay the price personally at the next election for the faults of the Government. The Executive should be for election so that members of the public have the right, which exists in most western democracies, of directly electing their Government rather than using him as a proxy.

[Sir William Cash]

I do not accept that proposition, but we do not have time to go through all the implications. I also completely repudiate his suggestion of a written constitution, and I suspect what the hon. Gentleman has just said has something to do with that.

The revelations by the right hon. Member for Yeovil about the coalition negotiations also implicitly accepted the argument that fixed-term Parliaments facilitate long election campaigns. That is where we are now. We are in an election campaign already, and questions arise about the amount of money that is being generated for financing purposes. That is a practical objection, the realities of which we are seeing as I speak. MPs are not expected to be very visible in Westminster during this Session, and I need only look at the Opposition Benches to see that only two Opposition Members are listening to this debate.

As was made clear in evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, knowing well in advance when the next election will take place encourages Governments to manipulate the economic cycle to their maximum advantage. That is a not unknown characteristic of Chancellors of the Exchequer, and we will have the autumn statement soon. But that substantial question has to be addressed.

The Act was a consequence of the need to build trust between coalition partners, and that is clear from all the books that have been written about the stitching up of the coalition. There was no agreement by the Conservative party that I would regard as proper agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, we had a meeting at which we were told certain things about what was going on between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and there was some doubt about that, if I may put it that way.

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public made no mention of their desire for a fixed-term Parliament when we were out campaigning?

[Sir William Cash]

That is true. There was no consultation or any attempt to discuss the implications for the voters. The negotiators were not particularly well versed in constitutional arrangements and the Act did not do what its short title suggests. In fact, the Act provides for semi-fixed terms. It includes provisions that allow early elections in certain circumstances, so to call it a fixed-term Parliament is a misnomer. Certain procedures would allow an early election. It is just that the circumstances that would enable that early election would be stitched up—as was the original coalition. They would enable early elections, but to what extent would the voters be involved? That is essentially undemocratic, and it also gives false hope that voter choice may not be as limited as under strict fixed-term provisions.

An election can be triggered if a vote of no confidence is carried against the Government and, within 14 days, a new Government is unable to carry a vote of confidence, or if two thirds of all MPs vote for an early election. It can also be triggered if everyone agrees on the need for an early election, but that seems extremely improbable. It is difficult to imagine when the idea of two-thirds of all MPs voting for an early election could ever be employed. Parties are hardly likely to vote for an early election if the opinion polls are not propitious. A Government could seek an early election by engineering a vote of no confidence in themselves, but, for heaven’s sake, if that were to be the case—I have had that put forward as quite a serious proposal—it is hardly likely to promote the reputation of, and confidence in, the parliamentary system.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act says nothing about what happens where a Government implode and then resign but the provisions in the Act are not triggered. We would then be in what has been described as the Belgian situation—Parliament continuing without a Government being in existence. I believe profoundly that the Act is an aberration. I think it is wrong. I think it is undemocratic. I think it requires repeal. I am aware that there is provision for it potentially to be repealed in 2020 under section 7, but it should happen much sooner, and as soon as possible.

13:41

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I realise I am craving the indulgence of the House. I would not normally seek to intervene in a debate when I was unable to attend the opening speeches. I understand, however, that the main protagonists have yet to speak, so I will use this brief opportunity to give my pennyworth in the hope that they may each be able to reply to one or two of the points I will make.

I have been listening to the debate, but I wonder if I could take the House back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) did, to the beginning and to when the coalition was being formed. When it was formed, I remember it was announced that there were going to be some constitutional changes, including this one. We were told that we were ushering in a new era of the new politics that was going to transform the people’s perception of how we conduct ourselves in this place. It was going to show the parties re-engaging with the enthusiasm of the voters and that, as a consequence, this would be a much happier country. I remember having a conversation with a Minister on the stairs going up to the Committee Corridor. He said to me that politics, after five years of the coalition, would be unrecognisable—that is what he said. If we ask voters today what they think about how politics looks today compared with four years ago, I think they would say that it is all too recognisable.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described—I understand he has had to leave the Chamber in a rush because he is attending to other duties in the House—has turned this place in upon itself even more than it was before. We are even less focused on what the voters think because we have given ourselves tenure. We have given ourselves security. We have given ourselves a fixed-term lease that cannot be challenged. And there is the idea that this was done as some selfless and noble act! I am amazed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) —I am afraid he is not in his place at the moment—should keep raising the question of how the Prime Minister might exercise his power with regard to partisan considerations. Well, perish the thought that any Prime Minister would ever do anything with partisan considerations in mind! I look back at previous Prime Ministers and think to myself: did Gordon Brown ever act in a partisan manner? No, no, never! Did Sir John Major or Tony Blair ever act in a partisan manner? No, no! The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was obviously yet another selfless Act introduced by a Prime Minister, with no party considerations involved! I think we are being asked to stretch our imaginations a little too far.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is one of the most partisan and self-interested Acts of Parliament that has ever been put on the statute book. It did not just provide MPs with tenure; it provided the coalition Government with tenure. It was providing the coalition with security; it was providing them with a five-year guaranteed supply of money from the taxpayer for their Administration. It was self-interested on the part of the Conservative Ministers who wanted to give themselves tenure. It was self-interested on the part of the Liberal Democrats to give themselves tenure not only in this coalition but in a future hung Parliament to guarantee that the only option would be another five-year coalition in which they, the smallest party, would once again have influence disproportionate to the number of votes they received. Even I missed the point about why the Labour party was so happy to give tenure to the coalition. The Labour party knew it was in a mess. It had a deeply unpopular ex-Prime Minister who had just been thrown out of office. It was going to have a long, protracted leadership election process. The last thing it wanted was another general election within six or 18 months. It was in no fit state to fight one, so of course it also supported the Act. This has created a politicians’ paradise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, it is designed to shut the British people out of the decision about what kind of Government they should be able to choose.

[Mr Syms]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Equal votes in constituencies for fair representation is one of the fundamentals of politics, yet the boundary review was voted down for narrow party interests.

[Mr Jenkin]

I totally agree. The whole question of House of Lords reform was also being advanced for party political interests.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley asked who should have the power to dissolve Parliament. Should it be the Prime Minister? I put it to him that holding that power is part of the authority of being Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) described it, part of the poisoned chalice of office is that the Prime Minister holds that power. By passing the Act, we have robbed the Prime Minister of part of that authority. We have robbed the Government of part of the authority of office that the Government live on a day-to-day basis, subject to the confidence of the House of Commons. That has been taken away and represents a fundamental change in our constitution.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) wants not only a written constitution and the continuation of fixed-term Parliaments, but the separation of powers. Basically, he wants an American constitution rather than a British constitution, but let us look at the American constitution. First, it is paralysed. It cannot get its deficit down and it cannot elect a strong Government. It can elect a President, but the separation of powers means that Congress can defeat everything the President wants to do. I do not think that that is a very good recipe. We do not want to follow that. In any case, the separation of powers is based on a misapprehension of how constitutions work. There is, in fact, no such thing as a separation of powers in any constitution. That was what Montesquieu thought he understood about the British constitution. The need for a separation of powers was the lesson that the American founding fathers thought they had learned from him about the British constitution. However, in the American constitution the President, the Executive, vetoes legislation and appoints the judiciary, and the legislature conducts pre-appointment hearings on the senior people in the judiciary. There is always overlap between the functions of government, and ours is a system of parliamentary government in which the Executive can hold office only with the permission of Parliament.

The Act has fundamentally altered the balance of power in our constitution. English votes for English laws, which many of us, including Labour Members, want, would require only a minor adjustment to Standing Orders and the running of the House, yet people are saying, “Oh, we’ll have to have a constitutional convention.” The Act made a far greater change but without a constitutional convention or any consultation; there was absolutely no debate. It was not even explained to the Conservative parliamentary party before we agreed to the coalition. It only became apparent that there would be a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill when the coalition agreement was published. Well, we have all learned our lesson, and the Conservative party will not be forming a coalition in the next Parliament until we have seen the coalition agreement in draft, and we will want to go through it line by line to ensure that such sleights of hand are not repeated.

[Mr Allen]

I hate to intrude on the private grief between the coalition partners, which this debate has become preoccupied with, but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to paint me as just a champion of the American constitution. Unlike him, I believe that the British people are perfectly capable of organising their own constitution, and they do not need him, other colleagues or the Conservative party to tell them what the constitution should look like. I would like them to work it out for themselves, and I have faith that they are perfectly capable of doing so.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am a little mystified by that intervention. If we are to make changes to our constitution, we need a mechanism by which to do it, and that will have to be done by elected representatives—it is called democracy; that is what we believe in—and so it will finish up here. If there was ever to be a codified constitution in this country, it would have to be debated and decided here, if perhaps subject to a referendum. I am mystified by the idea that in the estates, villages, towns and cities, the constitution is going to write itself, like some virtual programme on the internet. I don’t think so.

The Act is a fundamental and dangerous change to our constitution because it threatens the privileges of the House. I do not mean our special, personal privilege; I mean the protection of our freedom of speech from questioning by the courts. Under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, what is said or done in Parliament cannot be questioned or impeached in any other place. However, the Act could result in the courts adjudicating on what kind of vote has taken place in Parliament, because it provides that the Speaker would have to write a certificate stating there had been a vote of no confidence or a two-thirds majority in favour of a Dissolution before the Prime Minister has the authority to go to the Queen and ask for one. It is possible that those votes could be disputed, and because it proceeds from an Act of Parliament, those disputes about who went through which Lobby and on what basis would end up being argued about in a court. This potentially runs a coach and horses through the very important question of parliamentary privilege.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

During the passage of the Act, did my hon. Friend speak or vote against the measure he now so roundly condemns?

[Mr Jenkin]

Yes, I did. On Second Reading, those of us in the other Lobby were staggered at how few we were—this was in the glowy aftermath of the announcement of the new politics—and I said, “You might feel lonely today, but don’t worry. One day, this whole Parliament will rue the day it passed this Act.” It will either be got rid of or we will find ourselves in the midst of the most almighty and intractable political crisis where a majority wants to dissolve Parliament and have a general election but we cannot do so. That is the prospect held out by the Act.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, we still do not really know what the Act means. It stipulates fixed-term Parliaments, but then it makes provision for shortening Parliaments. We have no idea what uncertainty it will create. The Act, passed to create political certainty, could become a source of the very uncertainty, instability and crisis it was intended to avoid. In that case, I hope Parliament would have the sense to take a Bill through this place and the other place as quickly as possible to clear this off the statute book. I commend the other place for its attempt to respect the wishes of the coalition to fix the term of this Parliament but to include a sunset or renewable clause so that it would have to be renewed at the beginning of each Parliament. At least that would have put the choice in the hands of the new Parliament. As it is, if we have another hung Parliament, we could find ourselves in that crisis sooner than we thought but with no sunset clause to get us out of the crisis.

13:56

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin): his was one of the many excellent speeches given in the past two hours.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and to my co-sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for joining me. I am also grateful to those Opposition Members who sponsored the debate, although, sadly, neither of them could be here today. As a humble new Member, I say to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) that I have views too, and I feel that on this subject many of them are mirrored by those outside this place, although I entirely respect his views.

I believe that democracy is best when it is unleashed and untethered and it rampages around the country like some wild beast. If we chain it, as the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 does, we neuter democracy because we neuter debate. Interestingly, Lord Grocott is doing the same as we have done by bringing in a Bill to repeal the Act. He told me on the telephone yesterday that his views, and those of many Labour Members, mirrored ours on the Government Benches.

Fixed-term Parliaments tend to produce coalition Governments, rather than minority Governments. This being the first, we are in the experimental phase, but we had no pre-legislative scrutiny whatsoever and strong objections were voiced in the other place. I fear that next time we might have three, four or even five parties trying to form a coalition Government for a fixed term. How long would it take to form that Government, if indeed it ever was formed? We have heard today that the electoral period has been extended from 17 to 25 days. If a coalition is formed, and if we mirror what happened in 2010, we will be looking at a period of two months without a Government.

I add one further possibility. What if either coalition party leader is challenged, which is possible? The parties will have to choose a new leader and the Government discontinue in the meantime—in effect, we do not have a Government. Yet here we are saying that Parliament is important.

In forming a coalition as a consequence of a fixed term, principles are sold. Our Conservative principles or those of the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats are sold in the name of compromise, which is necessary for a coalition to be formed. As I said in a speech on Tuesday, this is why I believe this place has been so devalued. No longer do we have clear blue or red water—I will not use the other colour, which I pointed on Tuesday would be rather inappropriate—so the electorate are not so sure what each party stands for. This is where the weakness in the current coalition system lies and it is where I think a fixed-term Parliament would lead us to. I do not necessarily want to pick holes in the Liberal Democrats, which would be ungracious of me.

[Sir Andrew Stunell]

Will my hon. Friend explain how the scenario he outlines would be improved by the possibility of an immediate second general election, which is the logical consequence of the case he puts?

[Richard Drax]

I refer to the quote of Lord Waddington, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash):

“Is it better for a government unable to govern to go to the country to try to obtain a new mandate or for the same government to spend their time fixing up deals in which the unfortunate electorate”—

the voters out there—

has no say whatsoever?...The people not the parties should decide who governs”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1991; Vol. 529, c. 260.]

I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Sir Andrew Stunell]

I am trying to understand the logic of the argument, in which the electorate decides that no party should have overall control. If there were a second election within a few weeks, as my hon. Friend suggests, and that one produced a very similar result, would he continue to hold general elections until one party had an overall majority. What is the logic of his argument?

[Richard Drax]

That is not the argument I am putting forward. There would be a period of a year or 18 months of a minority Government before that Government would go back to the country.

A fixed-term Parliament gives the junior partner in a coalition more power than it is due. If we had a Conservative Government, much more legislation would be going through Parliament. The junior party, to be fair, has its own views and principles, and it will force compromise on the senior party, potentially leading to lame-duck Governments. I believe that we have reached that point to some extent now, as other hon. Members have argued. A Government naturally run out of steam; they cannot do what they want to do, because the two parties can no longer agree.

Why, then, after the election in 2010 did we not have a gentleman’s agreement? In 2010 my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said:

“The Prime Minister is giving up his constitutional right to request a Dissolution, and I can understand that that is very important—a matter of honour between himself and the Deputy Prime Minister. It means that the Prime Minister cannot pull the rug from under the coalition, but why do we need legislation or, indeed, a motion to achieve that? Surely the Prime Minister's word is sufficient.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 141.]

Would that not have been a wiser path to choose, with the two parties making a gentleman’s agreement? We see from the history of coalitions that they never last more than two or three years, because of the very nature of coalitions. At some point, two, three or four years in, the two parties could have agreed to disagree, and the Prime Minister would have gone to the country.

I believe that a fixed-term Parliament with a coalition Government as a consequence leads to a complacent Opposition—one of the most dangerous aspects of all. What have we heard from the Opposition about their policies, what they are going to do to sort out the economy and their approach to all the major issues and problems our country faces? They are happy, rightly, to sit on the sidelines and snipe at a fixed-term Parliament. They maintain a poll lead of 1% or 2%, so why should they stand up and say, “This is what we are going to do to sort out the deficit”? It leads, as I say, to a complacent Opposition, who can wait until the very last minute because they know the election date.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said, it is the Prime Minister’s right to call a general election when he or she chooses. This must keep Parliament, the voters and all of us on our toes, and it keeps the Opposition on their toes. The Opposition do not know what is coming, although they can make a guess. They have to tell the British people what they stand for and what their policies are, perhaps two or three years into a Parliament. If, for example, the polls indicate that the Conservative party is well ahead, the Opposition have to tell the British public what they would do in the event of an election. If the Prime Minister and the Government are doing well and are ahead in the polls, why cannot they go to the people? The people are saying, “We are pleased with what you are doing; we like what you are doing; you are doing what you said you would do.” If we then went to the country and won, the people would be pleased; they have had a choice, without having to wait for five long years. Otherwise, a Government who are not achieving what the electorate want can remain in power, which is surely not in the electorate’s interests.

[Sir Andrew Stunell]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s generosity in giving way, but I am afraid that the logic of his argument escapes me again. If a party is very unpopular in power, that is precisely when it will not call a general election. Equally, it could be said that if a party were popular, perhaps by accident and not so much because of its policies as because of the vagaries of the economic climate, it might try to take advantage of that situation—quite inappropriately.

[Richard Drax]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex so wisely said, perish the thought that parties are partisan or non-partisan in these events. Of course they are. If the economic climate warrants the Prime Minister going to the country in the belief that he or she will win, I find that perfectly pertinent. I see no problem with that whatever. As I said, it keeps everybody on their toes.

This tinkering with the constitution, which is what we did, was not thought through and not much debated. The electorate certainly did not have a choice on fixed-term Parliaments. I believe that we tinker with the constitution at our peril. I admit that I voted for the measure at the time, but I was green and naive in those days, and I would not vote for it now. We are, as a consequence of this Act, stuck in a situation that does not satisfy Parliament or the parties and certainly not the electorate.

Over the last two or three days of debate, we have heard many Members saying how awful they think the public think we all are. I disagree. My view is that we should stop self-flagellating and get on with our jobs. We should stand up for what we believe in and tell the country exactly where we stand on issues. Sadly, in a coalition partnership, it is difficult to do that.

Finally, I would have liked the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to contain a sunset clause, but sadly it did not. As Members have said, it is to be reviewed in 2020. When the Minister makes his winding-up speech, I would be grateful if informed us where exactly the Government stand on this issue. I am sure that the shadow Minister will do exactly the same.

[Sir William Cash]

With respect to the question of whether people outside know what we are doing, does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that they are now much more in a fog than they were because of the identity of the Conservative party being lost in this amorphous coalition—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There have to be short interventions. Sir William, you have already had a speech. We do not want you to make another one. A short intervention was all that Mr Drax needed.

[Richard Drax]

I always enjoy interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I could not agree with him more. It is far thicker than a fog. Unfortunately the electorate cannot see what we are doing at all and they feel disfranchised. We are stuck in this place pontificating about things that we can do nothing about, whereas a single Government, Labour or Conservative, could. I do not believe in some mythical, old-fashioned system whereby we all popped off to go shooting pheasants or hunting, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North rather cynically suggested. Dare I say that perhaps one or two of us pop off to go shooting or hunting, but that is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with the constitution of our country. That is the point.

We have tinkered with the constitution at our peril. I feared when I voted for the Act that if we did it, the Opposition might do something similar or even worse. I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North did not mean a 10-year tenure but it certainly sent shudders through my spine. Ten years of Labour would be a reason for leaving the country, in my view. No, I speak in jest. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that. [Interruption.] I would have to turn the lights out.

I would be interested to hear whether the Government have any intention of repealing the Act. We will be calling for a vote and we very much hope that the Government will back us and that Labour will support us. For the sake of democracy, it is important that it does. Many Labour Members in this House and in the other place, despite their laughter now, want this Act to be repealed.

When we secured this debate I emailed about 50 Opposition Members seeking their views on the issue and asking whether they would participate. I had one reply: “You’ve had five years. We want it too.” This is precisely what I feared would happen. This is not democracy. This is a massive fix. For the sake of the electorate and this place, it must be solved with the repeal of the Act.

14:12

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the other Members on both sides of the House on securing the debate. It is a debate of great constitutional significance, as we have heard. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 repealed an important and long-standing aspect of the royal prerogative which allowed Prime Ministers to dissolve Parliament when they saw fit. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I found myself in agreement with pretty much everything he said this afternoon and I will do my best not to repeat it.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to the repeal of the prerogative. Does he believe that if the Act were repealed, either under the motion or in 2020 under the provisions of section 7, that the prerogative would revive? I imagine that he has had a chance to look at that issue.

[Stephen Twigg]

I will return to that issue, which relates directly to a point that the hon. Gentleman made. He referred to the review, and I welcome the fact that there will be a review, but I am certainly not persuaded by anything that I have heard today that it would make sense to do what the motion says and repeal the Act. I would like to set out the reasons why.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) suggested that Labour had supported a fixed-term Parliament because of our predicament following the general election in 2010. The problem with that argument is that it was in our manifesto prior to the 2010 general election. Labour was committed to a fixed-term Parliament. Our view was to have a four-year fixed-term Parliament, and we were persuaded by our review of policy in preparing our manifesto of the democratic case for having a four-year fixed-term Parliament.

[Mr Jenkin]

The problem the hon. Gentleman has is that I was told by a member of his party’s Front-Bench team that they were delighted that we were putting the Act through, because it meant that Labour would not face an early election for which it was completely unprepared.

[Stephen Twigg]

The fact is that we fought an election in 2010 on a manifesto commitment to move to a fixed-term Parliament. That was a long overdue reform and I am delighted that my party committed to that in 2010.

[Sir Andrew Stunell]

Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that the commitment was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which is why it was in the coalition agreement?

[Stephen Twigg]

Absolutely. I wonder whether the motion should have been worded, “That this House supports the repeal of the coalition agreement”, because most of the speeches from Conservative Members seem to be more about rehearsing debates about the coalition than the issue before us.

Fundamentally, this debate is about the power of the Executive in Parliament. I believe that the Act enhances the role of the House by removing the ability to dissolve Parliament whenever a Prime Minister saw fit. That seems to be the absolutely central argument in favour of a fixed-term Parliament. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) talked about voter choice, but the system prior to fixed-term Parliaments did not give voters more choice; it gave choice to the Prime Minister and the leader of the party in government. That is not a democratic argument at all. In a modern democracy we should not accept that form of unaccountable power. The Act imposes constraints that give more power to this House versus the Executive.

[Sir William Cash]

It is the pressure exerted at the point we reach a confidence motion that demonstrates what is going on outside as well as inside. Had there been a similar situation over, for example, the Maastricht treaty, I have no doubt that there would have been a resurgence of voter opinion at that time. I think it is democratic, not the other way round.

[Stephen Twigg]

As the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, the Act retains the ability of the House to pass motions of no confidence in the Government of the day. That safety valve to which he refers still exists.

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman is making a case for transferring the prerogative power to this House. What is the basis of the argument in favour of a two thirds majority requiring a Dissolution? Surely that is taking power away from the House and giving the Executive tenure?

[Stephen Twigg]

I do not accept that. However, if the motion were to say that we should review that aspect of the Act, it would have a stronger basis. The motion says that we should repeal the entire Act. I have not heard an argument that persuades me that we should do so.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Twigg]

I will give way one more time but then I need to be able to make my argument.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very grateful. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that the two thirds majority could be reviewed, is he not accepting that the Act does not work? As soon as it is a normal majority, the Government of the day have the ability to call an election whenever they want.

[Stephen Twigg]

I simply do not accept that, because there is still the provision within the Act for confidence motions on the basis of a simple majority. We are only at the tail-end of the first Parliament in which the Act operates. It makes sense to say, “Let this run its course for this Parliament and the next and then have a review.” That is a sensible way of making constitutional reform.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Twigg]

No, I am not going to give way again.

The previous position gave the Prime Minister and the party of the Prime Minister an enormous advantage. Opportunistically timed elections allow Governments to ask voters to assess their performance at the time most favourable for that party. Research shows very clearly that British Prime Ministers from both main parties have made extensive use of this power, to time elections for reasons of partisan advantage. Just under 60% of our post-war elections in this country have been called early by the Prime Minister of the day.

It is inevitable under that previous system that partisan advantage played a part in prime ministerial decisions about when to call an election. When a Government party has been confident of its re-election, the Prime Minister would usually go to the country after four years, rather than five. As I said in an intervention, Margaret Thatcher did so successfully in 1983 and 1987 and Tony Blair did the same in 2001 and 2005. Of course it does not always work, as was pointed out. Harold Wilson went to the country in 1970 expecting he would make use of his lead in the opinion polls and be re-elected, and he was not. Nevertheless, his intention was to go early because he thought he would win.

Parties that are less confident of their electoral position have tended to continue into their fifth year, leaving their reckoning with the electorate until the latest possible date. We saw that happen in 1997 and in 2010. It cannot be right that the governing body, of whatever party, has this massive in-built advantage.

Research from Oxford university suggests that strategically timed elections have allowed governing parties to achieve a bonus in elections over the past 70 years of about 6% in public support. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act creates a more equitable electoral playing field among the parties of Government and those of Opposition, which can only be healthy for our democracy.

It is now nearly 40 years since Lord Hailsham warned of the dangers of an “elected dictatorship”, with powers increasingly centralised with the Executive. Fixed-term Parliaments are one—only one—of the ways we can counteract that, by taking away the Prime Minister’s greatest chip: the ability to threaten a recalcitrant minority coalition partner, their own Back Benchers, or troublesome Opposition parties with the Dissolution of Parliament. That can be done at the behest not even of the party of Government, but of the leader of that party, the Prime Minister.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North that in the longer term there is the possibility— I do not put it any higher than that, as I am a realist—that fixed-term Parliaments can help contribute to a different style of politics. A greater responsibility of the Executive to Parliament demands a more pluralist style of governance. Some, like the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), clearly do not like the idea of pluralism. The idea that not all the knowledge and wisdom lies in his own party is clearly alien to him, but I think there are many in the British public who actually quite like the idea that people can sit down together and work together in the national interest. People get very frustrated with politics when we fall into petty tribal battles, and prefer grown-up debate about the issues.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Twigg]

No, as I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.

More often in this place, we can work together to try to find more common ground. Fixed-term Parliaments will make that more likely.

There is a legitimate debate to be had on the right length of a fixed-term Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) reminded us, in the 19th century the Chartists wanted annual elections and Parliaments; it was the one Chartist demand that was never implemented. Our manifesto in 2010 committed to four years, and, as my hon. Friend said, the length of time in New Zealand is three years. However, I think there is a good case—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North made this case very powerfully—that a term of five years can have a stabilising effect on our politics, ensuring that Governments can make some important strategic and long-term decisions in the national interest, so I think it is right that we allow the five-year fixed-term Parliament to bed in. We can review it after two Parliaments, as the legislation allows, but it is far too early for us to consider repeal of the legislation.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

So if Labour gets an overall majority, it will not repeal the Act and it will stay in for the full five years.

[Stephen Twigg]

Absolutely. We supported fixed-term Parliaments in our manifesto in 2010, and our policy remains one of support for fixed-term Parliaments. We are not committed to the repeal of this legislation, which is why I am speaking against this motion, and why I will vote against it if there is a Division.

Yes, let us have the review that is promised. It makes sense to have that review, but I have heard nothing today that persuades me that there is a case to repeal what is actually a very important and long overdue piece of legislation that rebalances our constitution and takes power away from the Prime Minister of the day and gives it to this House. That is a positive reform and I urge the Minister to stick with it.

14:24

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

We have had some great contributions from both sides of the House. There were seven Back-Bench speeches, from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax). They all made some thoughtful and insightful points about the Act. The arguments put forward can be summed up as follows: the Act is an aberration, it is a political stitch-up and it strengthens the Executive over Parliament and the public, and that it therefore should, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, be reviewed and repealed. I will address each of those points in turn.

First, on the issue of review, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset explicitly asked about, it will be for the next Government, whether of a single party or of coalition parties, to evaluate how the Act has operated in this Parliament, and what, if any, lessons can be learned, and how they can make best use of their own fixed term. Not only will such an appraisal assist the next Government in their planning, but it can help to inform any amendment that might be needed to the Act.

I turn to the case that was made for repealing the Act. There has not been consensus about whether the argument is about having a shorter fixed-term Parliament or not having any fixed term at all. It is interesting to note that the right length of a Parliament has been debated in this House over centuries, which should come as no surprise in our 800-year-old democracy. It is striking how, at different points in our history, the case for shorter, and indeed longer, Parliaments has been made. In the 17th century—in 1641 and again in 1694—we had Triennial Acts requiring Parliament to be called every three years; I am sure the hon. Member for Great Grimsby would agree with that. From 1716 we had the Septennial Act, setting the maximum duration of a Parliament at seven years. That was amended in 1911, to set the maximum at five years, and finally repealed in its entirety only in 2011.

[Sir William Cash]

In my hon. Friend’s historical survey, has he noticed that the reason why the Triennial and Septennial Acts were passed was to suit the convenience of the Government of the time? In the case of the Septennial Act, it was also to do with the Jacobites and the rest of it, but it has always been for the convenience of the Government. That is the purpose of such Acts; there is no great constitutional principle.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. There were, of course, many other times when Parliament has considered whether we have the right balance for our time. During the era of the American revolutionary war, a Bill for annual Parliaments was moved year after year by a small but committed core of Back-Bench supporters. In response to my hon. Friend, I would say that our debate today continues the fine tradition of probing our constitutional arrangements, and, yes, it is right to continue to probe and to ask the right questions, but he and his colleagues’ concern about the fixed nature of this Parliament is not new in our democracy.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I have a mild disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I think it is worth recalling that the Septennial Act was introduced because of the cost of elections, particularly the cost of bribing the electors, and it was thought better to have it once every seven years than once every three, to lower the cost to the pockets of Members of Parliament.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. Parliament has had this debate several times, and there have been several reasons to alter the length of a Parliament. Sometimes it has been done in the national interest, and sometimes—some would argue—for naked political reasons. The situation that we face today is certainly not an aberration in the history of our democracy.

The genesis of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 raises a number of questions, many of which have been mentioned today, especially by Members on my side of the House. The Act had its genesis in the coalition, which was an historical anomaly. It is therefore important to separate the concept of a fixed-term Parliament and the value that it could have for the British public from the concept of the coalition, although both came together. A single party could have passed the Act if it had had a majority in this Parliament to do so. By the same logic, a single party could repeal it on a simple majority if it so wished. Fixed-term Parliaments are not inextricably bound to the idea of a coalition.

Four years down the line, it is easy for us to forget that when the coalition was formed, words such as “secure and stable government in the national interest” seemed like the punch line to a joke, but this fixed-term Parliament has been able to deliver exactly that for this country. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said that democracy should be a wild beast that could rampage around the country. I would hazard a guess that this Parliament has been anything but predictable. It has been unpredictable at every twist and turn. The fact that it has been a fixed-term Parliament has not neutered our democracy; indeed, it could be argued that it has invigorated it in a number of respects.

[Richard Drax]

I do not agree with the Minister on that last point. Our country has faced far greater dangers than the ones we faced in 2010, yet we saw no need to change our constitution on those occasions.

[Mr Gyimah]

I was incredibly nervous when our country was on the brink of financial and economic collapse after 13 years of a Labour Government, and we needed to take the necessary action to get the country back on track.

Having listened to the arguments today, I believe that the Government remain unconvinced of the need to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It is too early to assess the full benefits of having a fixed election timetable, but it is clear that there are advantages to a system that is transparent, consistent and fair. This Government came to power at a time when faith in our political system was at an all-time low. Political and constitutional change has been part of tackling that. It cannot be right for key decisions about our democratic process—perhaps the key decision: the timing of an election—to be decided by the Executive on the basis of political advantage.

Many have argued that the Act somehow strengthens the Prime Minister. I argue that it weakens the Prime Minister’s position, because he cannot decide the timing of an election by his own fiat. It was Roy Jenkins who said that a Prime Minister who lost an election had, ipso facto, called that election at the wrong time. By fixing the date of the general election, we have significantly weakened the Prime Minister and given strength to Parliament and the public.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If fixed-term Parliaments were such a good idea, why did we not put them in our manifesto?

[Mr Gyimah]

There are many good ideas that were not in our manifesto; it is important that we, as politicians, are able to adapt and to reflect the times.

It is not the case that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced simply to maintain the coalition. The previous system, whereby prerogative power was exercised over a democratic process for political advantage, served the wrong interests. Imagine Gordon Brown sitting in Downing street in 2007 chewing his fingernails and trying to decide whether that was the right time to call an election so that he could have another five years in government.

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

The Minister means “the right hon. Gentleman”.

[Mr Gyimah]

I meant to say “the right hon. Gentleman”. I stand corrected.

By setting out the general election timetable in legislation, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act removes a Prime Minister’s power to call a general election. Removing that power from the Executive and giving it to Parliament enhances the transparency of our democratic system and represents a significant surrender of political power. Fixed-term Parliaments also provide a number of practical benefits to both Parliament and the Government. They provide greater certainty and continuity and enhance long-term legislative and financial planning, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said. They also afford greater political stability by giving future Governments foreseeable terms.

Some of the arguments that we have heard against fixed-term Parliaments are that they are inflexible, that they were conceived in a hurry and that the consequences were not fully thought through. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. It is also argued that fixed terms prevent a Government from ending and Parliament from dissolving when they reach their natural end, when it would be most beneficial for a new Government to take the reins. But as I have said, there are benefits to stability, certainty and transparency, and to those inside and outside Government being able to plan.

The question of flexibility has been raised in the context of the Scottish referendum and the need to change the timing of the next general election. Under the Act, the Prime Minister of the day is able to lay an order before both Houses to extend the date of a general election by a maximum of two months to deal with unexpected developments, although they must spell out their reasons for taking that step. The Act also provides for early elections to be called if a motion is agreed by at least two thirds of the House or without Division, or if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative Government are confirmed by the House of Commons within 14 days. I do not believe that that limits voter choice.

Prior to the Act, a party could change its leader midway through a Parliament and that new leader would become Prime Minister. In that situation, the new Prime Minister would be under no obligation to call a general election for five years. Under the terms of the Act, however, the leader could still go to the country, although a vote in the House in favour of so doing would require a two-thirds majority. It is unlikely that the Opposition would withhold their support, for reasons of political consensus.

[Mr Allen]

The Minister is making a thoughtful and cogent speech. Now that we have a fixed-term Parliament and we know the date of the next general election, does he accept that that knowledge is the property of the British people? Does he agree that, if any incoming Government sought to repeal the Act and give powers to a Prime Minister who had not been directly elected by the people, that would create a real crisis of legitimacy and be seen as a power grab by the party that had won the election?

[Mr Gyimah]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the convention in this country is that a Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments. If a future Parliament wanted to repeal this Act, made the case and had the votes in this House, it could repeal the Act. The more substantive point, which has been made a number of times, is that in a five-year Parliament the fifth year is wasted. The truth is that be it a five-year, four-year or three-year Parliament, it is always possible to make the case that the last year is spent electioneering, so that point does not necessarily follow from having five-year fixed-term Parliaments.

The final point I wish to deal with is the idea that the Government have run out of steam. In the Queen’s Speech, we announced a full legislative programme; there were 16 main programme Bills, including five carry-over Bills and three draft Bills. That compares with 13 main programme Bills, including three carry-over Bills and two draft Bills, in the last Session of the previous Parliament. Our programme includes legislation dealing with serious crime, trafficking and modern slavery, improving access to finance for small business and pensions.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby invoked Oliver Cromwell and his words to the Long Parliament:

“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.”

I would say that the Labour Government were here too long for any good they could do and, be it on the economy, welfare, health or education, this five-year Parliament is doing a lot to get our country back on track.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain why passing a lot of laws is a good idea? Have we not got enough laws already?

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which comes as no surprise to me. He would agree that when we got into government we had to fix an almighty mess and rectify a big mistake—the last Labour Government—hence the legislation that we have had to pass in this Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

For up to two minutes, I call Sir Edward Leigh.

14:39

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in this thoughtful debate. I am grateful to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who seemed to be arguing for a vigorous Parliament—we all agree with that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) for quoting Oliver Cromwell. At least this Parliament is not going to run for 20 years like the Rump Parliament did—we are at least agreed on that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for saying that we believe in a rampant and vigorous democracy. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the points they made about putting these matters to the people. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the Opposition spokesman, for reminding us that a fixed-term Parliament would ensure that we would have a five-year Labour Government if they get an overall majority.

Finally, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that he has made a wonderful job of defending fixed-term Parliaments, but what a pity we did not argue this before the general election. We all know that this was a short-term stitch-up, and there should be a proper debate. We have started to have that, and sooner or later I hope we will make the point that it is the people who should decide when is the right time to have a general election, when a Government are weak and running out of steam. General elections should not be set at an arbitrary date, and so we will not be withdrawing our motion.

Question put.

14:41

Division 61

Ayes: 21

---

Conservative: 18
Labour: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 68

---

Labour: 61
Liberal Democrat: 4
Conservative: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Oral Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

09:30

Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): I beg to move,

That this House notes that children were born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; also notes with concern that as the surviving victims enter their forties and fifties many of them face a host of new problems as their bodies continue to suffer; further notes that no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years after the first reports indicated possible dangers; further notes that some doctors continued to prescribe the drugs for pregnant women after official warnings from the Committee on Safety of Medicines; calls on the Secretary of State for Health to fully disclose all documents relating to the use of Hormone Pregnancy Tests held by the Department from the period between 1953 and 1978; and also calls on the Secretary of State to set up an independent panel to examine these documents.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and all my colleagues for supporting me. I will be pushing this motion to a vote at the end of the debate.

My constituent Nichola Williams contacted me more than two years ago to tell me her emotional and agonising story. Nichola was born with life-threatening internal congenital deformities in her stomach, spine, heart and womb. Her first operation was when she was seven days old. Since then she has had a lifetime of visits to hospital as an in-patient and an out-patient. She has had to struggle to lead a normal life. She said:

“My stomach is on the wrong side. I have seven spleens. Throughout my life, I have had to have a number of operations to correct my stomach. I was born with a number of adhesions and obstructions. I have spinal defects.”

Some may argue that Nichola’s condition could be a fact of life and that some people are simply born with abnormalities, but that is not the case. Nichola was tested, and she does not have faulty chromosomes or faulty genes. She has two healthy brothers and three healthy children, so her condition is not an act of nature.

Nichola was born in 1971. When her mother suspected that she was pregnant, she visited her GP and was prescribed primodos, a hormone pregnancy test. Primodos was a hormone-packed pill manufactured by the pharmaceutical giant Schering, now owned by Bayer. Its ingredients were similar to oral contraceptives, or the morning-after pill, but much stronger—40 times stronger, in fact. The test was supposed to work by inducing a period in a woman who was not pregnant.

During the past few months, campaigners have discovered a number of files in the National Archives and brought them to my attention. They are official Government documents; letters exchanged between Government officials, doctors and scientists. They show that gynaecologists and paediatric research departments raised serious concerns that primodos could affect the foetus or even cause the child to abort. Some of those files were classified until 2010 and so have only recently come to light.

In 1967 the then Committee on Safety of Medicines was contacted by a paediatrician at Queen Mary’s hospital in London, Dr Isabel Gal. Dr Gal had found a link between hormone pregnancy tests, such as primodos, and spinal congenital malformation in newborns. The Minister of State at the time said:

“she had produced prima facie evidence that foetal abnormalities might be associated with the use of hormonal pregnancy testing.”

The same year, a letter from the Medical Research Council stated:

“It looks like in fact this could be another thalidomide story”.

The Royal College of General Practitioners then produced figures for Schering showing the high rate of miscarriages, stillbirths, infant deaths and abnormalities of babies whose mothers had taken the hormone pregnancy test. The report’s author, N.B. Dean, concluded

“that the drug should be withdrawn.”

In 1968 the Royal College of General Practitioners sent a letter to Dr William Inman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, stating that 10% of abortions recorded after primodos were unlikely to be due to a chance. The same year, Schering’s lead UK scientist wrote to the parent company in Berlin, stating:

“It is extremely disturbing, that the results of statistics, human studies, and other studies all point clearly to the possibility that Primodos may interfere with a Pregnancy.”

Despite all that, the drug remained on the market. Why? Given the gravity of the severe congenital abnormalities, surely the drug should have been immediately suspended, pending full clearance by the committee. Ironically, and sadly, this happened soon after the thalidomide tragedy. But no, there was hesitancy and incompetence. As a result, 1.5 million pregnant women were placed at unnecessary risk by being prescribed these drugs. Thousands of children were damaged, suffering from dreadful disabilities. Many are brain damaged, some have spina bifida, and others have heart and limb defects, cleft palates, deafness and other horrible disabilities.

Instead of taking action, the Government did nothing. The Committee on Safety of Medicines began a belated pilot study only in 1969 and undertook no full study until 1972. It was clearly a leisurely affair, even though the suggested link between congenital abnormalities and the drug was found to be supported. But it was not until 1975—eight years after the first reports—that the committee published an official warning.

However, from the documents that we have uncovered, it seems that time and again the evidence presented by Dr Gal was dismissed by the Government watchdog, the Committee on Safety of Medicines. In a very interesting letter to his colleagues, the senior medical officer, Dr Inman, writes:

“I have had an Exhausting meeting with Dr Isabel Gal… She believes she should have had more funding for her research, and that a large number of abnormal babies may have been born in the time that has elapsed… we are defenceless, in the matter of the 8 year delay”,

He goes on to say:

“Isabel Gal is an intelligent, dedicated but RATHER SAD little person… I dealt with her sympathetically, but I do not believe we have heard the last of this matter”.

In a paper produced in 1975 even the World Health Organisation questioned why research on such a critical issue, published in the late 1960s, was not followed up for so many years.

A Sky News correspondent, Jason Farrell, who has also been investigating the issue, found that in 1970 primodos had lost its licence for use as a pregnancy test drug, but the Committee on Safety of Medicines had failed to warn doctors until 1975, in a letter that suggested that

“it may cause congenital abnormalities”.

Not until 1977 did it state that the “Association has been confirmed”. Bayer, which now owns Schering, confirmed to Sky News that the drug had not been licensed as a pregnancy test after 1970, and that anyone using it would have been doing so “off-label”—that is, not according to instructions.

Why, given that the drug has been withdrawn as a pregnancy test, is it still being given to women for use in pregnancy? That includes Nichola’s mother and thousands of other women. Why did this warning not appear on the drug packet until 1975?

“Not to be taken during Pregnancy. A possibility exists of an association between the use of Primodos during early pregnancy and an increased incidence of congenital abnormalities. Because of this possible hazard, Primodos must not be taken unless it is certain the Patient is not pregnant”.

Everyone else knew about this—the medical profession knew, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines knew—but the people whom they were supposed to be protecting knew nothing at all. In 1967, when the prima facie evidence was presented to the Government of the day, they should have advised all doctors about it and stopped prescribing the drug. They should have said that the drug should be suspended until there was further evidence of its safety. If the Government had taken that action, thousands of babies would not have been damaged and disabled. Government attitudes have been curious—and I do not refer to any particular Government; it seems that all Governments have failed to do anything.

When the late Lord Ashley asked about the issue, the attitude of the then Government was certainly curious. They admitted that there was an association between hormone drugs and congenital abnormalities, and that that was supported by a study published in 1975—they even admitted that those conclusions had been confirmed in 1977—yet, at the same time, they continued to deny that it had been proved that such drugs caused malformation. The Government, Lord Ashley observed, had said:

“The study showed only a statistically significant difference between the number of malformed babies born to mothers who have taken the drugs, when compared with controls.”

He added:

“‘only a statistically significant difference’? They might equally say that there is no evidence that cancer kills; there is merely a statistically significant difference between those who have and those who have not got cancer.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 2004.]

I ask the Minister to answer these questions. Does it not matter to him that there are documents stating that studies supported the association between these drugs and abnormalities as early as the 1960s? Does it not matter to him that drugs were withdrawn so suddenly by the manufacturers? Does it not matter to him that the Committee on Safety of Medicines did not inform doctors for many years that primodos could no longer to be used as a pregnancy test drug? Does it not matter to him that doctors continued to prescribe such drugs after 1975, and that there is evidence of malpractice on a large scale?

Earlier this year, I met one of the Ministers in the Department—not the one who is present today—and he said that he would look into it. Following that meeting, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which has replaced the Committee on Safety of Medicines, published a report in which it said:

“No causal link has been proven”.

In other words, “Forget about it and go away.”

Since then I have approached Ministers again, and I have raised the matter during Prime Minister’s Question Time, but no one has bothered to ask to look at the papers involved. I have a bundle of documents, which they ought to go through properly. If they did so, they would all be standing up and saying that there should be an inquiry.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

My constituent, the wonderful campaigner Marie Lyon, has doggedly pursued this issue, and I think we can fairly say that that has led to my hon. Friend getting this excellent debate. I am aware of two constituents who have been affected by this drug. Mr and Mrs Tilley’s son Stephen was born with brain damage, and when they asked for Mrs Tilley’s medical records, they found they were missing. This is not the first case I have heard about of records being lost or destroyed in this regard. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about this apparent cover-up?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the cover-up.

We have recently discovered another document in the Kew archive: a letter from the 1960s about the minutes of a meeting of the General Medical Services Committee, in which Dr Inman was involved. It says that there was worry about a request by the Committee on Safety of Medicines that doctors should be monitoring adverse reactions to medication. Doctors were a bit concerned about that in case they might be liable for negligence actions. The minutes say that doctors should stop recording adverse reactions, and, even more significantly, that those who have recorded any such evidence should have it destroyed. That fits in with the constituents, including mine, who have said that when they, as parents, have gone to their doctors to get their records, they are somehow mysteriously missing.

A British medical director of British-based Schering Chemicals, which is a subsidiary of Bayer Schering in Berlin, urged the withdrawal of the hormone pregnancy drug primodos in 1969, but his plea was rejected by the company. In the same year, the author of a survey for the Royal College of General Practitioners also recommended the withdrawal of the drug, but he, too, was turned down. Until this day, Bayer has refused to take any responsibility.

Jason Farrell, the Sky News reporter I mentioned, has met the statistician, Dennis Cooke, who was contracted by Schering in the ’60s. In a report, of which he still has copies, he compared the increase in the sales of primodos with the number of recorded deformities in newborns, which, he says,

“show a rather alarming direct and strong correlation.”

Schering stopped promoting primodos in 1970, and prescriptions fell from 120,000 in that year to 7,000 by 1977, when it was withdrawn. National statistics show that birth deformities declined during that period as well.

Another person I want to allude to is Professor Briggs. Many times, whenever it has been contacted about this, Bayer has referred to the court case of 1982. It is important to explain to the House that the damage claims brought by the victims were discontinued in the 1980s because some of the medical witnesses defected to the defendants, Schering Chemicals, so the case had to be withdrawn. Some of the victims say that the so-called experts who went over to the Schering side had an interesting story. One of those was Professor Briggs. Some years after the case collapsed, The Sunday Times published an interview with Professor Briggs by Brian Deer, a journalist, in which he accepts that he had in the past “fabricated” studies and carried out

“scientific fraud on a large scale”.

That is on the internet and can be read by anyone.

On a CD that has been kept under lock and key—there is an injunction on it—Professor Briggs is heard confessing:

“Difficulties would be encountered if doubts expressed about hormone pregnancy tests were made public. These were exactly the same hormones as the contraceptive pill and would have cast doubt on the safety of hormones which would extend doubt on the safety of the Pill. This would have a major influence on worldwide family planning which could be a real human disaster. It could cause panic among millions of women worldwide which could result in thousands of pregnancies.”

Later he claims:

“Drugs such as these would never be allowed to be on the Market today, given what we ‘now know’ and following what we know about Potential Hazards to the developing Foetus.”

Those comments were made in a documentary called “The Primodos Affair”, which has never been aired because Schering took out an injunction. Why did it do that? What did it have to hide?

There is further curious evidence regarding other witnesses. Dr Smithills approached a drug company for which he was doing research work on the drug Debendox. He suggested that he would approve the drug and that a funded research project would be an appropriate reward. Dr Inman opened a research centre soon after the case, after he left the Committee on Safety of Medicines. And guess what? Professor Briggs also opened a research centre in Australia soon after the case.

I have no hesitation in saying that those witnesses were bought off by Schering. It is amazing how all of them ended up opening research centres, which, as everybody knows, costs money.

Obviously, the situation is not this Government’s fault, but no Government have taken action over the years. Given the weight of evidence, why did the regulators not warn the doctors? According to internal correspondence from the Committee on Safety of Medicines, it admits that it has

“no defence for the 8 year delay”.

Interestingly, the authorities in Sweden, Finland, Germany, the USA, Australia, Ireland and Holland issued warnings and took action on the drug as early as 1970, five years before any warning was issued in the UK, despite the fact that the first group that knew about the problem was the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

One of the things thrown at the victims is the claim that there is no link, but there is a link: so many statistics show a correlation and so many doctors saw what happened. There seems to have been a complete failure on the part of the body appointed to monitor medication. It could have taken action but failed to do so, so the Government of the day were culpable.

Interestingly, Schering discontinued the product and stopped using it for pregnancy tests. Surely that suggests that something was wrong with the drug; otherwise, it would not have been taken off the market.

It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. We have found out in recent years about cover-ups in relation to so many tragedies, including thalidomide, Hillsborough and the sexual abuse of children in care homes and institutions. The 1960s and ’70s seem to have been an era of cover-ups, wherever we look, and victims in those cases campaigned for years and years to get an inquiry. The case under discussion has been going on for 30 to 40 years. Is it not about time for the victims—there are thousands of them—to get the justice they deserve?

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work she has done to secure this debate and her work with campaigners. She is drawing a contrast between this and previous cover-ups. To support her point, I should like to point out that, in this new age of transparency, we seek not a public inquiry but an independent panel, which should be well within the Government’s gift.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for all the support that he has given me and all the work that he has carried out in the campaign on behalf of his constituents.

I want to end by paying tribute to Marie Lyon, who has already been mentioned, and the victims association for all its work, as well as hon. Members who have given their help and assistance. I want to name-check two hon. Members who, because of their positions, are not able to speak in the debate: one is my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is in the Chamber; and the other is the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who is not here today.

15:15

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I pay tribute to her for her work on the all-party group on oral hormone pregnancy tests, and for securing this debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time to debate such an issue in the Chamber. Once again, the Committee has highlighted the House’s ability to work on a cross-party basis. I was particularly impressed by the fact that the hon. Lady’s speech was non-partisan in condemning all previous Governments, rather than just one Government; that has been much appreciated.

I have come to this debate late in the day, but after a constituent of mine informed me about the impact of the issue on her life and her family, I was lucky enough to be briefed by the campaign. The campaign should be congratulated on the work that it has done in talking to Back-Bench MPs to ensure that we are willing to speak on the issue.

It is important to point out that my constituent Mrs Margaret Roberts has provided a fantastic example of why lobbying your MP does make a difference. To be perfectly frank, if it had not been for her persistence and the fact that she came forward to explain the impact of what happened to her family, I might not have spoken in this debate. People complain that MPs are too easily lobbied, but I argue that when constituents lobby their MP, it is often an essential part of our democratic process. I am very pleased that Mrs Roberts made the effort to come to talk to me.

Having read Mrs Roberts’s testimony and listened to her talk about her experiences, it is difficult not to be moved. As a parent, I found it difficult not to be moved when I heard about the joy, grief and guilt she has felt because of the impact of the drug on her son Garry. It is worth touching on such issues because, ultimately, we need to try to shine a light on what actually happened. Nothing can change the impact of what has been done, but it is important to recognise that people want to understand exactly what happened.

In speaking to Mrs Roberts about her son Garry, it was very apparent that he brought immense joy to the family. Despite the fact that he had severe disabilities from birth, he battled on for 37 years. He was born in 1964, but passed away in 2001. What is remarkable in Mrs Roberts’s testimony is that somebody with such significant disabilities should live such a fulfilling life. Wherever he went, he clearly touched the lives of other people, not least those of his three siblings and his parents, and he had a significant impact on his carers, whether they were care in the community support staff or hospital staff. It was difficult to listen to all her testimony without feeling moved by the impact that somebody with such severe disabilities can have on others for the greater good.

What also came through was the grief of a family who expected their first-born to be healthy, but who knew within a few hours that something was wrong. I could not help but feel very affected by that. As a father who had twin boys born at 30 weeks, I know what it feels like to see one’s children taken away to be given special care. I am lucky that they came back and that they are healthy and fit.

It was hard to hear the testimony of somebody who knew that something was wrong for months and years. They have never been given a full explanation of what exactly did occur. The joy that Garry brought to their lives is clear from Mrs Roberts’s testimony, but so is the grief of knowing that they were the parents of somebody who suffered the constant visits to the hospital and the constant need to talk to the medical establishment. Throughout all that, no explanation was given of the cause of the significant health problems that he faced.

Finally, I want to touch on the issue of guilt. That is the reason why this debate is so important to people such as Mrs Roberts. She went on to have three healthy children, so she constantly asks herself whether her decision to take the tablets back in 1964 was the cause of the suffering of her son Garry. Does she need to blame herself or was it beyond her control? She needs an explanation of exactly what happened. That is why this debate is important.

We have an obligation to highlight the information that is available to Government, and to ensure that it has been looked at carefully and taken into account. We must also have the ability to look at that information afresh to see whether mistakes were made, where they were made, why they were made and how we can avoid them in future. That is the key point that comes across from the campaign group. Of course they want answers, but they want answers to ensure that such a situation does not happen in the future.

Having spoken about the issues that my constituent and her son have faced, I think it is important to associate myself with the cause made by the hon. Member for Bolton South East. We need to ask why the evidence that was collated was not acted on at an earlier date. We have heard testimony that the authorities in the United Kingdom were aware of the issues before the authorities in other countries, yet it appears that other countries acted to ban the substance before the United Kingdom. We need to know why that was.

Now that so much information has come to light from documents that have been released under the 30-year rule, why can we not instigate an inquiry with a panel of experts to evaluate what went wrong and how it can be rectified for the future? It would not have to be a far-reaching inquiry. Most important, an expert panel of the nature envisaged by the hon. Member for Bolton South East and the all-party parliamentary group would be able to tell people whether they were in any way responsible for what happened. I suspect the answer is that they were clearly not, but if that information was provided by reputable experts who had looked at the information afresh, it would give people like Mrs Roberts a degree of closure. People who are suffering the effects of what they believe to have been the ill-advised use of the hormones would also be able to understand what happened and why they have suffered.

I call on the Government to make good the mistakes of previous Administrations by taking seriously and giving due consideration to the simple request that an expert panel be put together. I am hopeful that the Minister will say that the Government will, in the interests of transparency and honesty, appoint such a committee.

15:23

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

It is a pleasure to succeed the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). I think that the whole House would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this debate and to commend the work that she and the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) have done.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. It is a demonstration of the work of that Committee and of committed MPs at its very best. I had the opportunity to lead a debate early on in the activities of the Backbench Business Committee on contaminated blood, which is not a million miles from this issue, although it is bigger in many ways. More people were affected and a clear link has been established between the mistaken use of contaminated blood and the terrible suffering that it caused. It is still a running sore because people cannot get closure.

I will come in a moment to the limited and modest nature of the request in the motion. I think it is contained and measured appropriately because the Government are still denying any causal link between the drugs and congenital abnormalities. First, however, let me say why I am taking part in this debate—indeed, a similar individual case sparked my deep interest in the issue of contaminated blood.

I have a constituent who suffered from the problem under discussion, and with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will read briefly from a letter she wrote to me. Her name is Mrs Christine Pettifer of Ladbrook road in Coventry North West, and she has given permission for me to mention her name and cite her case in this debate. She wrote:

“I went to my GP…and he gave me Primodos—”

the hormone pregnancy testing drug in question—

“to see if I was indeed pregnant. I was a bit worried about taking the tablets, but he assured me that if I was pregnant, nothing would happen. If on the other hand I was not pregnant, it would bring on a normal period.”

We can all guess the terrible consequences. In her case they were as follows:

“When my baby (Lynda) was born on 26 January 1969 the staff thought she looked a bit blue, and took her away to the nursery. I tried to breastfeed her, but she seemed sleepy all the time. At that time, all babies were put in a nursery for the night. In the early hours of the morning on 29 January, I was woken by a nurse to the terrible news that Lynda had died. I have the post mortem, which in layman’s terms stated that her heart was the wrong way round.”

I cannot claim that there is a direct cause between that and primodos, but we hope that the Minister will address the modest nature of the request we are making to the Government.

Let us be clear. As late as July this year, a Minister from the Department of Heath stated:

“The MHRA has considered the key evidence and concluded that the data are not sufficient to support a causal association between the use of hormonal pregnancy tests and congenital abnormalities.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 668W.]

The MHRA assessment was published on its website in 2014, and that remains the Government’s position.

We have raised this issue because of the situation of my constituent and that of the hon. Member for Aberconwy, but why are we pushing for an inquiry? It is because people want closure on this issue—it is like relatives of those who have died in an air crash or at sea. People want closure; they want to find the evidence and a reason for what happened, just as with all issues that involve the public sector in one way or another, as clearly this one does. As far as I am aware—nothing has come to me—these people want no apology or financial compensation such as that appropriate in the case of contaminated blood, but they want closure in their own minds. They cannot get that until they have a statement from the Government, which must follow a proper inquiry, and that is what we are asking of the Government today.

Let us be precise about what is being asked of the Government. We are all aware of the great pressures on Government time, particularly specialist time. They may look back and say, “This affects a relatively few number of people.” Indeed, this is not the fullest debate we have had in this House, but for those affected it is of deep concern, and they cannot rest until they know what happened. That is why I am so pleased to support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East.

The motion is to the point. It simply

“calls on the Secretary of State for Health to fully disclose all documents relating to the use of Hormone Pregnancy Tests held by the Department from the period between 1953 and 1978”.

Members will remember that the case I cited came right in the middle of that period, when already some indications—no more than that—had been raised by Dr Gal. They had been dismissed and there was no clear, massive statistical correlation between what was happening in a certain number of cases and the use of the drug. Fair enough—but the issue was not being taken as seriously as we would have liked, and it went on far too long.

My hon. Friend indicated how lax and slow the predecessor agencies to the MHRA and the Government were in reacting to the situation. As late as July this year, the Secretary of State for Health said that there was no evidence for these claims. If so, let us have the documents. The motion also

“calls on the Secretary of State to set up an independent panel to examine these documents.”

Nothing more, nothing less. It is as simple as that—a limited request to the Minister on an important topic to bring closure to certain individuals. If the will is there, Ministers can find the resources. I urge the Minister, as do other hon. Members, to accede to our requests in the name of our constituents who cannot otherwise reach closure, and to announce that he will set up that panel as soon as possible.

15:30

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). He may be troubled—or pleased—to know that I have spoken after him on more occasions than I have any other Member, which means that I have probably listened to more of his speeches, and he has had to listen to more of mine, than absolutely necessary.

It is a pleasure to support this debate and the case made by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I know that she has made considerable efforts in this very distressing matter. With all the cynicism about politics today, if we ever need a reminder of how active constituency MPs can play a positive role for their constituents, the evidence of this debate makes the case better than anything else I could say.

A constituent of mine, Chris Gooch, approached me some time ago about this issue and her daughter, Emma-Victoria. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) said—that the sense of responsibility that parents feel in such circumstances is magnified by the fact that they cannot as yet even be certain that the decision that they took in good faith, fully trusting the medical authorities and the drugs manufacturers and confident that regulation would protect them, has had such a dramatic effect on them and, more importantly, their offspring.

Chris Gooch made this point to me: “When I went to the GP, I did not ask for medication. I went to get confirmation of pregnancy. I knew nothing of what tests were available, but have since found out that a totally safe urine test was already available. So why was I given something that had been raising concern among professionals for many years and with no warnings given to GPs?” That sums it up. How is it possible that people can have gone with confidence to a GP they trusted, hoping for confirmation of a joyous event in their lives, and been handed two pills, without prescription, that had a legacy that will live for ever? I hope that the House will be able to make a contribution to lifting the veil of secrecy over this issue by persuading the Government to hold an inquiry.

Let us remind ourselves about that drug. One dose of primodos equates to 13 morning-after pills or 157 oral contraceptive pills. I am no medical expert, as many will testify, but it strikes me as somewhat perverse that a pill with such high levels of medication should be used as a pregnancy test. Surely that is a cause for concern.

Our motion is very simple and the hon. Member for Coventry North West has been kind enough to spell it out. We understand the constraints on government but we hope, particularly as this Government have been determined to shed transparency on so many issues that have been clouded for decades, that this relatively simple and reasonable request for an independent panel to look into the paperwork, history and documentation not in the public light will be accepted. Let me try to anticipate some of the points that might be raised in objection.

The question of causal link, which I am told scientifically may be the case, should not be a barrier to an independent panel. Many scientists and experts have raised the possibility of a large question of doubt. Let us face it: in this place we have made policy on the basis of less evidence than that which has been put forward by panels of experts who raised significant doubts about the treatment that was available and freely given to unknowing patients.

Without running through the whole list, two or three striking pieces of evidence have stuck with me. On 4 November 1966, a consultant pathologist from Sheffield said

“The test is unreliable. It may well have been dangerous”.

On 23 June 1967, the Medical Research Council said:

“It looks like it could be another thalidomide story.”

Schering’s own specialist advice in the UK raised doubts.

Our job in this House is to reflect the wishes, concerns and priorities of our constituents. I find myself at one in asking the Government’s help to navigate through these documents and this history. It becomes very complex for all but the most persistent. It is with that in mind that I pay tribute to the campaigners, because they have not been daunted by that task. They have not been daunted by the conflicting evidence. They have not been daunted by the lack of funding, or the availability and sudden loss of witnesses to legal cases in the past. They have persevered ruthlessly to try to obtain documentation, despite having the full weight of the establishment against them so frequently and so often, that I feel the time is right for us to champion transparency. Let transparency be championed across the House, albeit that we need the Executive branch of government to implement it.

[Mr Robinson]

I have been briefed fully by campaigners outside this House. Marie Lyon, whose daughter was born with a very foreshortened arm, came to see me with her husband yesterday. She has been indefatigable in her briefing of MPs and we should pay tribute to her for that.

[Nick de Bois]

Indeed we should. I echo and support those sentiments, as I am sure we all do across the Chamber. They reflect the courage and determination of every sufferer in every family. Their bravery in confronting this and in facing the future should be honoured by the setting up of the independent panel that they rightly seek.

I want briefly to press three issues: the conduct of the manufacturer; the conduct of previous Governments; and the conduct of the profession. I believe they build a compelling case for uniting behind the motion.

In 1978, when this issue was first raised, a former Labour Member, Jack Ashley, championed the cause in Parliament. It was reported in The Times that he pressed the then Health Minister to hold a public inquiry—this was after an intolerable eight-year gap between the first doubts being raised and a warning being issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines—but unfortunately his response set the tone for the future. He said that nothing new would learned from holding an inquiry—as we now know, thanks to the diligent work of campaigners, there was lots more to be learned, and there probably still is—and that it was not worth following up because most cases would have been dealt with. I submit that this approach—expediency over justice for victims of primodos—was not necessarily the right one to take. His tone was reflected in later ministerial statements, but Jack Ashley pressed on, and I am sure he would have been proud of the hon. Member for Bolton South East for showing the same diligence.

We need to explore what the committee did between 1967 and 1975, and it is right that we now give members of the action group the opportunity to understand what happened. What government records are lurking about? It is right that we finally establish how many people were put at risk. Where was the duty of care in government, the profession and the regulatory body? In 2014, we can at least make a modest effort to make up for the then Government’s failure to consider those points.

What of the profession? In 1967, the Medical Research Council made it clear that primodos could have been another Thalidomide—so far, so good—and warnings were expressed about the high proportion of pregnancies in 1968 following use of the drug. This should have been sufficient for the profession to press for more to be done. We know that the committee was prepared to publish information letting the profession know of its concerns, and it even concluded in a letter in 1967 that if its concerns were made known, it could reduce its use by GPs, and that this would have been no bad thing. But nothing happened. In fact, the committee referred it to a GP survey for two years, until 1969, despite being fully aware of the warnings, and nothing happened until the matter was exposed by the media in 1975. This led to warnings, and subsequently the manufacturer put a warning on the box.

In 1975, the World Health Organisation asked why nothing had been done for so long. I cannot judge what was going on at the time, but I think we will be judged on how we deal with this issue in this present time, and I hope that will be sufficient to drive the Government towards the independent panel. The company was completely aware of warnings—not just from the profession and the regulatory body with which it was in communication, but from its own staff.

I freely refer Members to my declaration on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests because I worked with medical companies before coming here. I am aware of much of the excellent research and development that has come from within this sector, but let that not cloud our judgment on this issue. We must hope that it is not just our Government and our NHS who buy into transparency; it must be the role and responsibility of our pharmaceutical companies to do so wherever they may be. We are not selling a consumer good here; we are selling a product that must secure the absolute trust and absolute faith of both the profession and the users. We should never be in the position of having to say that there has been the potential for deliberate mismanagement of information from, in my opinion, right across Government, manufacturers and regulatory bodies, leading to this most distressful and distasteful situation for people who are suffering now as a result of some of that conduct.

I hope that Schering, now Bayer, will embrace the mood of this House and voluntarily come forward with as much information as possible. In this age, that would bring more benefit than harm to corporations that are understandably concerned with their image; above all else, however, such action would enable them to fulfil a moral responsibility that has clearly been lacking in this case.

I would be grateful to know that today, notwithstanding all the other issues we can argue about and the things we could do, we can take a moral and justifiable stance to help secure justice for campaigners who have been worried, troubled and wronged for far too long. I hope that the Minister will listen favourably to that request.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I suggest to remaining speakers that in order to ensure that everyone gets into this important debate in the time we have left, each speaker should take no more, which means less, than 10 minutes. That will share the time fairly and enable us to hear what the Minister has to say at the end.

15:38

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this important debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I would like to thank, too, my hon. Friends for setting up the all-party group, which has been so helpful in supporting campaigners on this issue.

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), I have come to this issue via my constituents, and I shall talk in greater detail about the experience of Mr and Mrs Chapman in a few moments. When they came to see me at a surgery a few months ago, I approached the issue, as have most hon. Members, with a certain degree of incredulity that a situation such as that experienced by that family could have gone on for so long without any action being taken, particularly without any serious examination of why so many babies were born with serious deformities between 1953 and 1975 or of the relation between those deformities and the hormone pregnancy drug that so many of the women had taken.

We know that the most common abnormalities identified include neural tube defects, cleft lip and palate, limb reduction defects, general cardiovascular defects as well as many more. It is believed that 1.5 million women took primodos and the effect of the drug much depended on the stage of pregnancy, but in addition to many women having children with defects, it is thought that in many more women the drug caused miscarriage.

In a written parliamentary answer in the previous Parliament, the number of those affected in the longer term by primodos was assessed at about 3,500. Most campaigners think that that figure is too low and that the real figure is much higher. We know that the drug company simply discontinued primodos and never looked back, but the victims, their parents and their wider families continue to live not only with the birth defects, but with uncertainty over what has caused them. Mothers are unable to forget the guilt for using the drug. Their children, now grown up, continue to look for answers as to why they were born with abnormalities. It is up to us in the House today to try to ensure that those people get the answers they have been seeking for many decades.

We know from sales statistics that many thousands of women used primodos as a pregnancy test between 1970 and 1977 even though it was not licensed for use in that way. We know that there was a huge delay in putting information into the public domain about the possible dangers of using the drug; indeed, information did not appear in the public realm until eight years after the first reports indicated possible dangers. That seems to be an extraordinary delay and, again, one for which no real explanation has been given.

Similarly, and despite the weight of evidence, regulators did not warn doctors and patients about the possible dangers of using the drug until much later than in other countries. Authorities in Sweden, Finland, Germany, USA, Australia, Ireland and Holland issued warnings on the drug as early as 1970 to 1975. That was many years before any warning was issued in the UK, despite the fact that the Committee on Safety of Medicines was the first medical authority to know of the hazard, as other Members have said. We know that some doctors continued to prescribe the drug to pregnant women even after official warnings from the Committee on Safety of Medicines had been given. We need some answers as to why doctors kept on prescribing the drug even when it was known that there were some dangerous consequences of using it.

We also need to ask why the medical community and indeed the committee that was licensing medicine did not take on board much earlier information, especially in the academic medical community, about the potential harm that could be caused by taking the drug. As early as 1967, as Dr Isabel Gal discovered, there were warnings that primodos potentially caused spinal congenital malformations in newborns. The Medical Research Council picked up on that the next year and said that it could be another thalidomide story. Yet no real action was taken to remove the drug until 1978. Some explanation for that delay would be very helpful.

We know that the drug companies and the MHRA are now saying that it is very difficult, given the passage of time, to do anything about this dreadful situation. We have to reject that notion very strongly. There are data available. They may not be in the public domain at the moment, but those data need to be examined and that is the purpose of the motion. The issue needs to be examined very carefully to provide some answers and to see whether a causal link can be confirmed. If not, other answers must be given to the people who have for many years considered primodos to have been the cause of the birth defects they experienced.

I will try to stick to the 10-minute ruling on speech length, so finally I will talk about the case of Mr and Mrs Chapman. I have their full permission to talk about their situation. It is truly heart-wrenching. Their daughter, Margaret, was prescribed primodos—two tablets were the instructions—simply to confirm a pregnancy. It was not her first pregnancy. She was surprised that she was being given medication to assess whether she was pregnant, and queried it, but the doctor said there would be no side effects, so she trusted the doctor and took the tablets. After her baby was born in March 1975, she noticed that her baby was blue, called the midwife and the baby was rushed to Newcastle general hospital. The baby was diagnosed as having a deformed heart and they were told she would probably not live very long. She was given emergency surgery in a specialist heart unit and, despite dedicated nursing at home by her mother and wider family, lived only for 18 months. That dreadful situation has stayed with that family for many years. It is heart-wrenching, and they desperately want some answers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West said that these families desperately need closure. I agree, and I hope we make a decision today to set up an independent panel, and to have all the relevant documentation put in the public domain. These families have been extraordinarily patient—we must pay tribute to how they have kept campaigning year after year, despite not really being listened to—and I hope today we listen to them and start the process that will perhaps give them some answers.

15:57

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on having secured this important debate. I will keep my comments brief because, unlike many other Members present, I come to this subject quite late, and solely through a constituency interest; one of my constituents contacted me. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on her in-depth knowledge; sadly, I will not be able to add much to that.

I simply want to comment on the contact I have had from my constituent, who first approached me on this issue back in the summer. He desperately wanted to come to the launch of the all-party parliamentary group—I congratulate those Members who have set it up, perhaps particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who has worked tirelessly on this issue—but could not attend because his daughter, Vicky, was in hospital. She remained in hospital for 11 weeks. She underwent three major operations, and very nearly died during one of them. All that was entirely due to the fact that her mother had taken an oral hormone pregnancy test some 42 years ago. I know it is 42 years ago, because it particularly struck me that Vicky was born in the same year as me, 1972, which is well after it was known that there were problems with oral hormone pregnancy tests. That information had not been communicated to GPs.

We all know how quickly information now spreads, particularly via the internet, so if there are ever any concerns about medication or medical treatment, we very quickly learn about them. It seems incredible that in 1970 there were known to be problems, yet that information was not communicated to GPs until 1975. Vicky was born during the five-year window when the problems were well known and the drug had had its licence removed but it was still being prescribed by practitioners.

Vicky has a phenomenal raft of problems that were caused by the drug. She was born with an ectopic bladder and malformations of her feet and legs. She also has an incomplete pelvis and significant spinal problems. She is doubly incontinent, and for the past 24 years she has been confined to a wheelchair. She is unable to walk at all. I have met her several times, and when I first met her I had no idea what had caused her disability. I just knew her as a really lively, bubbly, enthusiastic member of the Romsey disability forum. It was not until her father contacted me and explained how her problems had come about that I began to appreciate what had caused her disability and how preventable it was. She could have been born completely healthy, had her mother not been given those drugs.

Vicky’s family have been quite amazing. They are really courageous and brave, and they were determined to hear the issue debated on the Floor of the House of Commons. They are pleased that it is being discussed today. What they and many other families want is the transparency that other Members have been calling for. They want to know what is in the documents that have not yet been made publicly available, and they would like me to urge the Minister—as many other colleagues have done today—to ensure that they are made available.

The family also want closure, and I do not think that that is unreasonable. We have heard from other Members that closure is critical to these families. The family support the calls for an independent panel to examine the documents, to come to an understanding of what went wrong and to give them the answers that they so desperately seek. I do not think those are big asks. In fact, they are really very modest and reasonable, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to grant the wishes of the many families who have campaigned for so long, and give them the answers they are looking for.

16:01

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

People often ask what an MP does. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) have demonstrated what a good MP does. They have taken an issue that has been brought to them by their constituents and pursued it until they achieve an end result. I hope that we will see such an end result today. I congratulate them on what they have done.

I was contacted by my constituent, Mr Kulvinder Sidhu, who asked me to attend and participate in today’s debate in order to secure the establishment of the panel and the full release of all the documentation. I do a radio show each week on Hayes FM, our local community radio, and I recently interviewed Mrs Valerie Williams, the former chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Testing. She succinctly explained the background to this scandal, and it was an extremely moving interview. She described some of the appalling human suffering that has taken place, and it was really shocking.

This seems to be a worrying hangover from the past. We thought, after the thalidomide inquiry, that we had put issues such as this behind us. We thought that in such issues, there would subsequently be full transparency, openness and decisive action by Governments. Today will test whether that is the case, and whether we will see decisive action. I do not think the general public would understand if there were a continued refusal to release all the papers, or if there were resistance to the establishment of an independent panel inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East has already said that we are mopping up the scandals of the past, including Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday. The hon. Member for Enfield North said that we are now living in a different era, with more openness and transparency. This debate will test whether that is really the case.

It is difficult to understand how we have arrived at this situation. We have to address the issue of the pharmaceutical industry’s relationship with the medical profession and with the Government. Big pharma, as it is now called, has insinuated itself into the decision-making and policy-making processes of successive Governments for the past few generations, and I believe that it has had an undue influence not only on Government decision making but on some of the professional institutions that regulate the medical sector. Big pharma is one of the most powerful lobbies in government of any industrial sector. This case is another example of where one company has used the clout of its financial resources, through the legal system, to silence critics and even those who have researched the information and tried to publicise it. That was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East in respect of the denial of not only access to information, but of someone even being able to publish or to produce a film that would have demonstrated to the wider general public exactly the scandal that is taking place. For too long, the pharmaceutical industry has dominated Government policy in a number of areas, including this one.

So I say to the Minister that this is a test case about who governs this country in the area of drugs safety and about the medical safety and security that we offer our constituents. I see no reason for the Government to deny the full publication of all the documentation and I also see no reason why we cannot have an independent panel inquiry. If such a panel is set up, I hope that not only will it be fully resourced, but those who will want to provide information to it will also be resourced, and that includes the campaigning organisation that has been fundamental to delivering today’s debate. Anything less than that will compound the scandal, because we now know much more than we did in the past about the cover-ups that have gone on, the sacrifices that have been made by individual families and the need for Government action today.

16:06

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing this Back-Bench business debate, which is a great example of such debates being used purposefully to pursue a passionate commitment of a Back Bencher. I also congratulate all the hon. Members who have applied for this debate and participated in it on the basis of constituency experience. What has emerged palpably is a deep sense of injustice, and Nichola’s story, mentioned by the hon. Lady, is telling in that sense. These families’ lives have been marred by a sense of not knowing, of grief and, in some cases, of guilt, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). Clearly, there is a strong belief that oral hormone pregnancy tests—primodos and others—taken between 1953 and 1975 did lead to children born with serious deformities.

It has been interesting to hear the evidence that has been gradually ferreted out of the system. It has been reluctantly given but persistently chased by those who believe that a deep injustice has been done. Some of the material that has come to light from the national archive as the relevant periods of time have elapsed demonstrates that. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and others have cited it, but it is worth saying that the director of the Medical Research Council—that is who this person was, so we are not talking about a small, insignificant organisation—said in June 1967:

“It looks as if this could be another thalidomide story”.

That should have rung alarm bells at the time, and it raises questions as to why if the bells did ring, they did not get heard and why the necessary steps were not taken for a considerable time after that.

It is interesting to look at this April’s report by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Although it acknowledges that a number of the studies do identify concerns about an association between hormone pregnancy tests and abnormalities in children, it goes on to dismiss them, and that is a cause for concern. I was struck by the fact that the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the 1970s—the independent body that advised at the time—did advise on the safety of these drugs, albeit slower than many others when it did so. It advised that pregnant women should not be using these drugs. We have heard compellingly about how other countries acted sooner, presumably on the basis of the same evidence, and it behoves us to try to understand why we did not act sooner. We know from freedom of information requests that the MHRA did write to doctors in the 1970s—in 1975—warning GPs of its concerns about the congenital defects.

The MHRA made it clear that primodos was not licensed as a pregnancy drug from the early 1970s, so it was being prescribed off licence. If we look at the current codes of conduct within the General Medical Council about prescribing off-licence drugs, it is very clear what needs to be done. Extra obligations are placed on those prescribing, and I cannot believe that those obligations did not and should not have applied in the 1970s. That alone warrants this panel having a chance to ask questions. Thousands of prescriptions were still issued right through to 1977 despite the warnings and those extra obligations on doctors when they prescribed off-licence drugs.

In April, the review of the 36 studies that have been undertaken concluded, rather disappointingly, that the evidence was inconsistent and not sufficient to reach a conclusion. I cannot help feeling that there is something missing from the MHRA’s work. Indeed it says itself that something was missing. All it could rely on was the available published evidence. My question today is: what about the unpublished evidence—the evidence that sits in the vaults of the companies that manufactured the drug? I hope that, as an act of good faith, those companies that protest their innocence in all of this are now prepared to put into the public domain and fully disclose all of their information about trials, so that that can be taken into account as well.

The motion that has been tabled today is perfectly reasonable—some might say almost too reasonable—in what it is asking for. It is not an unreasonable request of the Government to have a panel to examine the evidence and to look at what is in the national archives, the MHRA files and the Department. I hope that Bayer, the pharmaceutical company that owns Schering, which manufactured the drug, co-operates as well. This is about learning lessons, ensuring that these things cannot possibly happen again and shining a light on to a very dark period in our medical history and understanding that even things that happened a long time ago continue to have real consequences in people’s lives today. Although I fear that action will not bring closure, we should at least take it because it might, and I hope that the Government will listen to the representations that have been made today, because the case for a review is compelling.

16:12

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

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) not just on securing this debate along with the hon. Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), but on her determined campaign on behalf of her constituent Nichola Williams. It is a measure of the success of this recent campaign that we are talking about this matter in the House and that there is rapidly increasing public awareness. Marie Lyons has also contributed to the campaign. In Scotland, my constituent Rose Stallard has been campaigning on the matter. Recently, she featured in an article in the Daily Record talking about her family and their experience.

Long before today’s commonly used urine-based pregnancy test, women were reliant on their doctors and the Government to prescribe what they believed to be safe oral pregnancy tests. One such test was primodos, which came in a small green packet of two small pills containing hormones. Patients were advised to take one tablet and then, if they did not bleed, a second 12 hours later. But in the 1960s and 1970s, the concentration of those strong hormones was extremely high. One dose of primodos equates to 13 morning-after pills or 157 oral contraceptive pills, which seems unbelievable given our increased knowledge now.

It is not yet clear how many people have suffered as a result of this drug, but at least one family in my constituency has been affected, and I suspect that there are many more. Mrs Stallard was one of the 1.5 million women who were prescribed primodos, which we now believe had such terrible consequences for their children, which included being born with under-developed limbs and facial deformities and many other medical problems, some of which we have heard about today.

Members are here today to represent their constituents and highlight the impact on their lives of the disabilities that resulted from their mothers being given that tablet, but we must remember that the drug is also suspected to have caused many miscarriages. I hope that that will be included in any review or inquiry resulting from the campaign and, indeed, from today’s debate.

Mrs Stallard told me that she was offered primodos by her GP when she thought that she was pregnant back in 1969. Having taken the test and bled, she thought that she was not pregnant after all, but she soon realised that she was indeed pregnant. She had a very normal pregnancy and gave birth to her third child—her first and only daughter—to her delight and that of her husband, Bobby. Unlike other cases we have heard about today, it was not until Elizabeth was over a year old that Rose noticed something was wrong, as Elizabeth was not developing at the same rate as her niece, who was the same age, and indeed her other children. Despite that, the family were advised that there was nothing wrong with her.

Eventually, when Elizabeth was three, the family were told by their doctor that she had “slight retardation”. That is the only diagnosis she has ever received, and she is now 44 years of age. She went to mainstream primary school, but it soon became apparent that she needed specialist help and she was transferred to a school that could provide it. At 15 she began to experience physical impairments. Only recently was she eventually given a brain scan, which showed that parts of her brain are now shrinking.

I want to highlight the fact that Elizabeth is now 44, so she has lived for more than four decades without any diagnosis, treatment or support. I also want to highlight that that is the age of the people affected. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who highlighted the fact that one of the main purposes of the campaign is to gain closure for the families affected. It is also about getting support for those men and women. They are now in their 40s and 50s and really need the care and support that can be provided by a full inquiry and compensation. Their parents, who are providing their care needs, are also getting older and are increasingly concerned about the future for their children. For more than four decades Rose has had to live with the aftermath of having been prescribed those pills.

What angers me most is the fact that the evidence now available suggests that serious concerns about the safety of primodos were already being expressed years before Rose, and thousands of other women, took the test. It should have been taken off the market when those concerns were first expressed, and doctors should not have been prescribing it after the warnings were given. All those affected deserve to know exactly why that was not the case. Why was it not taken off the market and why did it continue to be prescribed in our NHS?

Back in 1968, Schering’s lead scientist wrote to the company’s headquarters in Berlin and made it clear that he was deeply disturbed by the evidence he was seeing of the impact the drug was having on children. Indeed, it is deeply disturbing not only that those effects were apparent, but that they were not acted upon immediately. If that research had been published then, rather than only recently, Rose and thousands of other women might not have given birth to children with life-limiting disabilities or might not have miscarried.

Let us be clear—this point has not yet been made—that primodos was not a necessary medication. The risks and benefits of new medications have to be weighed up, and there can be debate over whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Although knowing for certain whether a woman is pregnant is helpful, and for some it is definitely medically helpful, it is not essential. I suspect that most women, if not all, presented with the risks of that test would rather wait a few weeks to know for certain whether they were pregnant. These women did not get the opportunity to make an informed decision, because they did not know about the risks at the time, even though they were known to others.

The hon. Member for Enfield North mentioned the work done in this place by the late Jack Ashley, who was the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent South. When I was doing my research before the debate, I read a response that he had received to a written question in 1977. He was told by the then Secretary of State for Social Services:

“In 1975 the Committee of Safety of Medicines advised the Health Departments that hormonal preparations, including Primodos, should not be indicated for pregnancy testing and that a warning about a possible hazard in pregnancy should be inserted in all promotional literature.”—[Official Report, 13 December 1977; Vol. 941, c. 152W.]

More than 30 years ago, in the House of Commons, this drug was declared to be hazardous. I find it hard to understand why the need for an investigation of something that was deemed hazardous, and was taken by many women on whose pregnancies it had hazardous effects, is still being debated in the House. Furthermore, it was revealed over the summer, in response to freedom of information requests to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, that letters had been written to GPs warning them about

“an increased incidence of congenital abnormalities”

in babies born to women who took the drug. Yet it was not until 1975 that the drug company finally placed a simple warning on the packaging.

Let me put to the Minister some of the questions that have been raised by me, by other Members who are present, and by our constituents. Mrs Stallard and the many families who have been affected are very clear about their need for answers to these questions. Why were papers not published when research was being conducted in the 1960s that would have shown the dangers of primodos at the time? Why did it take until this year to publish the documents? What other related documents are being held by the Government, and indeed by Bayer, and are yet to be published? Will the Government undertake to publish immediately every single document that is available to them? Why was primodos not removed completely from use until 1975—or, according to some reports, 1978—years after the dangers were known? Most important, why was it still being prescribed after the Committee on Safety of Medicines had issued official warnings?

I ask the Government to commit themselves today to establishing an independent panel to examine those documents. I also ask them to acknowledge the need for an independent inquiry if a review by the panel reveals that it is required.

This morning I was visited by my aunt, who asked what the day held for me. I told her about the debate and about primodos, its suspected impact, and the fact that we were campaigning for and requesting an independent panel review. She simply looked at me and said, “I do not understand. Why does this require a debate? Why will the Government not agree to it immediately?” I could not agree with her more, and I hope that the Minister agrees with her too.

16:23

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the other sponsors of the debate for ensuring that the House discusses an issue that has been ongoing and unresolved for 40 years. I greatly admire my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on behalf of the families, who have never received the answers they deserve. I thank other Members for their thoughtful contributions, which are testimony to how much the issue has moved those in all parts of the House. I also pay tribute to Marie Lyon, chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Testing, who has never given up what has been a real struggle to get to the bottom of what happened and why. I had the privilege of meeting Marie and hearing her own story.

Today I speak not just on behalf of my party’s Front Bench and as a member of the shadow health team, but in my role as a local constituency MP. I was visited in Liverpool by my constituents Pat and Terry Hughes, who told me their story, which I have their permission to share with the House. Pat had taken the oral hormone pregnancy test, primodos, in 1971, and her daughter Katherine was born by caesarean in October of that year. When Pat came round from the operation, she was told that something had gone horribly wrong. Katherine had been born with no gullet and no back passage. She had kidney problems and disfigured feet. Very tragically, Katherine survived for just two hours. Pat and Terry never had the opportunity to see their baby. I was incredibly moved to hear that story about Pat, Terry and Katherine’s experience, and about Pat and Terry’s immense bravery, but also about their determination to find out why Katherine was born the way she was.

As we have heard, Pat and Terry Hughes are not alone. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House have shared their constituents’ stories. It is worth reminding the House of how many stories we have heard. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East about Nichola Williams. The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) told us about his constituent Mrs Roberts and her son Garry. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) shared the story of Mr and Mrs Tilly and their son Stephen. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) talked about Christine Pettifer. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) spoke on behalf of his constituents, Chris Gooch and her daughter Emma-Victoria. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) spoke on behalf of Mr and Mrs Chapman and their daughter Margaret. The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) talked about her constituent Vicky. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke on behalf of his constituent Kulvinder Sidhu. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) spoke on behalf of her constituent Mrs Rose Stallard and her daughter Elizabeth.

Those are just some of the many hundreds of individuals and families who have endured for more than 40 years not just the disabling physical conditions but an overriding sense of injustice. We are here today to determine whether there is a case to answer, whether there are unanswered questions, and whether there is information out there that might help fill in the gaps. I think that the case is clear.

Let me summarise the points we have heard. We have heard about the drug itself. Like the hon. Member for Enfield North, I am not a medical professional, but we do not need to be doctors or scientists for alarm bells to ring when we hear that a drug that was approximately 40 times the dosage of a contraceptive pill prescribed today was then prescribed to be taken by pregnant women twice within the course of 12 hours.

We have heard about the many women who took the pill at the time and who went on to suffer instant miscarriages. Thousands more gave birth to babies with missing limbs, abnormalities in their internal organs, brain damage, and heart defects. Many of those children died before reaching adulthood. Of course, many mothers who have not taken this pill also gave birth to babies with disabling conditions such as these, but the scale of the proportion of women who had taken the drug and who experienced complications gives rise to some serious questions. There were between 500 and 700 UK members of the Association for Children Damaged by Oral Hormone Pregnancy Tests, although it is thought that the true number of alleged victims may be in the thousands. The Government have estimated the number to be 3,500. In Germany, where a primodos equivalent was distributed, another 500 families are fighting for their claims to be heard.

We have heard about the studies on the drug that were undertaken at the time. In 1968, the Royal College of General Practitioners sent a letter to Dr Inman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines stating that 10% of abortions recorded after primodos were unlikely to be due to chance. The committee received a letter from the Usher Institute of Public Health in Edinburgh, which had concerns about its study on rats and abortions. It stated:

“Primodos should be withdrawn from use.”

In 1968, the drug company’s lead UK scientist wrote to the parent company in Berlin:

“it is extremely disturbing that the results of statistics, human studies and other studies all point clearly to the possibility that Primodos may interfere with a pregnancy.”

Those are just some of the studies and warnings that were received throughout the 1960s and early ’70s, and we have heard from many hon. Members on both sides of the House about further representations and studies that were done at the time.

That takes us to the crux of the debate: the significant delays in communicating those warnings. By the early 1970s, primodos was no longer authorised as a pregnancy test. In fact, it contraindicated for use in pregnancy, meaning it was declared that it should not be taken during pregnancy. Despite that fact, primodos continued to be used as a pregnancy test until 1975, when the Committee on Safety of Medicines finally wrote to doctors to warn them that the drug “may cause congenital abnormalities”. A warning was placed on the packet, saying it was

“not to be used during pregnancy...may cause congenital abnormalities”,

but it was not until two years later, in 1977, that the committee wrote to GPs stating that the “association has been confirmed”. In 1977, there were 7,038 prescriptions of primodos to pregnant women. A 1975 paper for the World Health Organisation questioned why research on such a critical issue, published in the late 1960s, was not followed up for many years.

It is worth reiterating that the authorities in Sweden, Finland, Germany, the USA, Australia, Ireland and Holland issued warnings and took action on hormone pregnancy tests as early as 1970, five years before any warning was issued in the UK, despite the fact that the Committee on Safety of Medicine was the first medical authority to know of the hazard.

Let me be clear: the point today is not why this drug was ever allowed to be prescribed in the first place, although there are some very serious questions hanging over that. No one is questioning the GPs who prescribed the drug. Why would they question the safety of the medicines and drugs approved by the Committee on Safety of Medicines? The problem is why, after so many warnings, and after it lost its licence to be given to pregnant women, there were so many delays in communicating that information to GPs. It was that delay that meant that so many women continued to take the drug long after it was known to be unsafe. Had the drug been withdrawn when the warnings become clear in 1970, my constituent Pat Hughes would not have taken it in 1971.

Why are we here? Why has this case not been resolved before now? We have heard from many Members that an opportunity the group had to mount legal action—which was supported by Lord Ashley, the then Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent South—against the pharmaceutical company Schering had to be abandoned before it got going, when the Legal Aid Board said it could not continue to provide public funding because it felt the weight of the argument was in favour of Schering.

That case, however, was more than 30 years ago. Just because the evidence we have knowledge of is insufficient does not mean there is not a case for investigating the issue further and trying to find out more. That is why we are here: to call for the full disclosure of all the documents held by the Government relating to this drug.

There are real challenges in obtaining scientific proof of a causal link, but the facts that we do have are incredibly compelling. The drug has been withdrawn, so it cannot be tested on women, and those women who were affected have gone back to their doctors for their records, only to find that they are no longer there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has said. I will not speculate on why the records are not there any more—I will leave it to Members to draw their own conclusions—but I understand that the BBC has made a documentary to expose that particular issue.

The situation leaves us with a real problem, and not just for those families affected: this is a matter of principle about the integrity of how we do things in this country. Marie, the chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Testing, explained to me that whenever she visits a doctor now, she questions everything that is prescribed to her. She has lost trust. These families want to prevent this from ever happening again.

The primodos case also raises wider questions about the safety of medicines. It is not acceptable to have such a shadow of doubt hanging over the impact of a drug that was licensed, prescribed and taken by women without due and proper process. If there are documents relating to this drug, it cannot be right that they are not made publicly available.

I want to finish by coming back to Marie Lyon, my constituents Pat and Terry Hughes, and all the other families who are still looking for answers. Feelings of guilt and injustice have followed them throughout their lives. They had 40 years of grieving for the children they lost, or of caring for those who survived. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts said, these families are getting older. The parents are now heading into their 70s, and they are worrying about who will take care of their children when they are no longer here.

The families still do not have any answers. This cannot be right. They need answers not just for themselves, but to ensure that this can never happen again. The petition signed by hundreds of people, which has been handed in to No. 10 Downing street, shows that that goal is supported by people across the country. Today’s debate has demonstrated that Members from both sides of the House are clear about what needs to be done to achieve it. It is a very reasonable request. It is important that the documents are released and that they are reviewed by an independent panel. I wholeheartedly urge the Minister to commit to making that happen. I look forward to his response.

16:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (George Freeman)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi)—I pay tribute to her work—and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee. I did not rebel very often during my first four years in Parliament, but I am proud that one of my rebellions was in support of the Committee. The debates it brings to the House are often of the very highest quality, as today’s has again illustrated. I am delighted to have the chance to come to the Dispatch Box and speak on this important subject. I pay tribute to the victims’ association for its work, as well as to Marie Lyon, Jack Ashley and the many hon. Members who cannot be here today but take a very close interest in this issue.

I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the Department’s view of this important issue. I first want to assure all hon. Members that the current Government take very seriously the concerns that have been expressed. I want to take this opportunity to express my and other Ministers’ deepest sympathy to those who believe they have been affected by these products. I absolutely commit that this matter will receive the highest attention that it deserves, although hon. Members will appreciate that this is not an easy issue, given the many years—40-odd years—that have passed since the tests were first used.

We have heard some very powerful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I want to highlight some of the points made. The hon. Member for Bolton South East spoke powerfully about the era of cover-ups. We have heard a lot in recent years about the cover-up of medical and sexual scandals—in Rotherham, Sheffield, Mid Staffs and, frankly, other areas—which have not been given the attention that they deserve. I suggest that we now need, and we are seeing, a new era of transparency, and that is all to the good. Medical professionals in the NHS and across the system have a duty of care and, like them, Ministers have a duty of care to the people we represent, and a duty of transparency as part of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) spoke powerfully about his constituent Mrs Roberts and his experience of premature births in his family, and the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) also spoke powerfully. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North made an important point about the trust that citizens and patients place in the medical profession and the health system. In return, we owe them a duty of trust and transparency. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) made an important point about how those involved in these cases need to receive some degree of closure and to know that the issue has been looked at properly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke powerfully about her constituents. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made an important point about the historical relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession. Let me make this point very clearly: this Minister and this Front-Bench team are here to represent only one special interest group, and that is the patients whom the NHS, the health system and the Department are here to serve. I say that as someone who has come from the industry. We also heard powerful contributions from the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash).

I want to deal with some of the key points made in those speeches. In particular, several hon. Members mentioned the difficulty caused by the lack of retention of medical records. I have personal experience of that. My father died when I was 19—a year after I had met him—and I was not able to get to the hospital or, later, to find out exactly how he died and what he died of. These days, our system is much better at recording information. This problem is one of the reasons why I believe we should support electronic patient records. Once records are recorded electronically, they are much easier to keep and track, so we would not have many of the difficulties that we face today. The Department is not aware of any documents requesting the destruction of papers or records. I am happy to make the commitment to review and action any papers that come to light.

I should point out for the benefit of the House that Dr Briggs, who is deceased, did not confess to falsifying any studies on hormone pregnancy tests.

It has been said that thousands of children were affected. The evidence on that is not clear and it is difficult to find accurate information. There have been various estimates at different times and the best estimate seems to come from the victims’ association. In 2009, it said that by October 1978 it had gathered information on more than 700 children who might have been affected, and that it had received additional responses and inquiries from other parents every time the topic received publicity. Despite the references to thousands of children, it is unclear how many we are dealing with.

I want to highlight an important quote from Dr Sarah- Jane Richards, who is a senior solicitor in medical negligence at Secure Law in Cardiff, that demonstrates that there is still a lack of clarity and no definitive proof of causality. She said that primodos patients need more definitive data, namely medical notes from several hundred subjects, to strengthen their case. She said:

“The facts are compelling… There are snippets of information which are extremely insightful—but at present, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence and a great insufficiency of scientific evidence. That is a real hurdle when we see a health issue such as handicap, which happens to an unfortunate two per cent of the population anyway.”

Hon. Members would expect the Government to be guided by the best scientific advice, so I wanted to share that with the House.

I want to address a number of points that have been raised in this debate, in earlier debates and in the work of the all-party group, including the eight-year gap between the first reports of a possible danger and the circulation of an official warning; the continued prescribing of the pregnancy tests by doctors in the 1970s; the need for full disclosure of the documents held by the Department; and the need for an independent panel to examine those documents. I confirm that I will be happy to instruct the release of all information that is held by the Department on this case, and the setting up of an independent panel of inquiry. I will say more about that at the end of my remarks.

First, I want to set the scene, because it is complex and difficult. I know that Members will be interested. As Members are aware, we have in the United Kingdom an agency whose sole responsibility is to ensure that all medicines in the UK work and are acceptably safe. That role is underpinned by robust legislation and guidance. In fact, we lead the world in medical regulation. However, we were not always this fortunate. In the late 1950s, when this story has its roots and hormone pregnancy tests were introduced, there was no legislation on the use of medicines in the UK, believe it or not. Unfortunately, it took the thalidomide tragedy in the early ’60s to highlight that serious deficiency, which now seems extraordinary to everyone in the House. Although sweeping changes to the legislation were made as a result, culminating in the Medicines Act 1971, by that time, hormone pregnancy tests were widely used.

The Committee on Safety of Medicines, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North referred, was first established as the Committee on Safety of Drugs in 1963 and took on its later incarnation in 1971. I will refer to it henceforth as the committee. Not long after the committee was established, a study was published by Dr Gal that suggested that there was a link between the use of oral hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. The study was reviewed by the committee, but considered to be methodologically flawed. At that time, the committee was not aware of other evidence to support such an effect. Nevertheless, the committee undertook its own study to investigate the matter further. Over the next few years, a number of studies were published, but the evidence for an association remained limited and the findings inconsistent. The committee carefully evaluated all new evidence as it emerged and, in 1978, concluded that

“to date there is no proof of the existence of a causal relationship between the use of hormonal pregnancy tests and congenital abnormalities”.

As a result of the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and other hon. Members, earlier this year the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) commissioned the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—the lead regulator—to review all the key evidence on this issue and produce a report on its findings, which I believe hon. Members have been sent. The report has also been posted on the MHRA’s website.

Based on studies published between 1960 and 2013, the MHRA’s view is that the results are inconsistent, with some finding no association, some a weak association, and some a strong association. Its conclusion is that the data do not provide conclusive evidence of an association between hormone pregnancy tests and birth defects. As hon. Members will appreciate, the Government have a duty to ensure that they are acting at all times on the best advice available from specialist agencies set up to advise them, which in this case is the MHRA. I believe that in commissioning the report, the Government have listened to and acted on the concerns that have been raised about this drug.

What I believe makes the conclusion difficult to accept is that several studies did show an association that was statistically significant and, of course, many people have visible defects and feel that their lives have been damaged by these drugs. However, there are good reasons why both those observations do not yet constitute the proof that a causal association exists—proof that hon. Members and citizens would expect the Government to acquire before taking action.

As hon. Members will know, it is always exceptionally difficult to know for sure that a medicine taken by a mother during pregnancy is responsible for a defect in the child. It is almost impossible to know whether the condition would have developed regardless of whether the medicine had been taken, and that is especially true for birth defects, which are relatively common and occur in up to four in every 100 live births.

With the studies there is an added complexity in that a statistically significant association is not necessarily the same as a causal association, because limitations in the design of the studies may mean that the results are not reliable. Examples of that include poor recording of what was prescribed by doctors—that, I am afraid, has been all too common; another reason for the digitalisation of health records—as well as biased recall of what was taken by sufferers, the preferential prescribing of pregnancy tests for women who were at higher risk of a difficult pregnancy in the first place, and a number of other complicating factors.

One of the key concerns of the hon. Member for Bolton South East related to the eight-year gap between the publication of the first study finding a link and the committee alerting doctors to a potential risk. Although I appreciate that that may seem an unacceptable delay, it is worth remembering that such a charge assumes that the committee believed there was a causal association. However, the report that I referred to previously suggests that that is not the case, and that the committee at no time considered those pregnancy tests to be responsible for the observed birth defects.

Despite that, in 1969, just two years after Dr Gal’s study was published, the committee took the precaution of asking companies to stop promoting the tests to doctors. As more evidence was published and alternative methods of diagnosing pregnancy became available, the committee considered there to be no reason to use the hormonal methods anymore, and advised doctors of that in 1975. As Members may know, despite the committee’s warnings it became apparent that doctors were still using those outmoded tests, so it issued a further alert in 1977.

At this point I remind the House that guidance provided by the General Medical Council gives doctors in the United Kingdom the freedom to prescribe any medicine if they judge it to be in the best interests of their patient, and they take responsibility for their prescribing decisions. In that respect, I believe the evidence suggests that the committee acted in a proportionate and responsible way given the evidence before it—that is the only test that we can apply at this point.

[Pamela Nash]

The Minister said that the committee had to issue a further warning in 1977. I appreciate what he says about responsibility being with the GP, but why would a GP prescribe those pregnancy tests if they knew and were clear that they were dangerous? Is it the responsibility of the committee that it did not communicate that danger aptly enough?

[George Freeman]

Unfortunately, as I have been trying to explain, in our system the sovereignty for prescribing lies with clinicians. Guidance can be issued and we would expect GPs to comply with it. Today that is more often the case, but we are dealing with a period when things were different. I cannot at this point tell the hon. Lady why a number of GPs did not comply with the guidance provided, but it was given very clearly.

Hon. Members have asked that the Department fully disclose all documents on hormone pregnancy tests held between 1953 and 1978. While I support that request, I remind the House that we are talking about an era that mostly predated medicines legislation and companies were not required even to submit evidence to support the efficacy, quality and safety of their products—extraordinary though that may seem to us today. As a result of that, and the fact that the pregnancy tests were withdrawn from use more than 35 years ago, the Department holds very limited information and what it does hold is already in the public domain. That said, I am happy to confirm to the House this afternoon that I will instruct that all relevant documents held by the Department be released.

The MHRA will of course review any new data that emerge as a matter of priority and seek independent expert advice as needed. I am happy to go further and confirm to the House that I will instruct an independent review of the papers and all the evidence. I suggest that that be carried out by the Medicines for Women’s Health Expert Advisory Group, which exists to advise the Department on such matters. It comprises independent members who are experts in their field, and I am happy to take submissions from colleagues to ensure that the association is properly represented and has a chance to give evidence.

[Mr Robinson]

I apologise for not being in my place for the Minister’s opening remarks. The news that the Minister has just announced is very encouraging and will help to bring closure and reassurance. I am sure that no Member, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), will want to press the motion to a Division now. I thank the Minister for his reply and the positive note that he has struck.

[George Freeman]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments and I hope that the House has taken what I have said this afternoon in the spirit in which it is intended. I am open to representations from the victims’ association and to ensure that the inquiry panel addresses all its concerns.

I assure hon. Members that Ministers in the Department will continue to monitor the evidence closely and to work with hon. Members and the victims’ association, so that if there is any reason to believe in a causal link, appropriate steps can be taken quickly. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton South East for initiating this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing the time. I am grateful for the tenacious advocacy of Members and many people outside, including many who cannot be with us today. We stand on the shoulders of others. Whatever the cause of the appalling disabilities that some people have suffered, their suffering still exists, and I look forward to co-operating in any way I can to try to shed light on the issue and bring the all-important closure in an era of transparency, so that lessons can be learned and this never happens again.

16:52

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate today. I particularly thank all the members of the all-party parliamentary group on primodos, all those who signed my early-day motion and everybody who participated in the petition that was presented to No. 10 Downing street. I also thank the association.

I should also mention a couple of other people. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned Valerie Williams, who campaigned on this issue many years ago. When my constituent Nichola Williams first contacted me I went to see her at her home. At first glance, she appeared to have nothing wrong with her. It was only on talking to her that I found out about all the internal damage that she has.

The campaigners have found a raft of documents that I went through with my researcher and my office. We thought that something was very wrong and that there had been a miscarriage of justice, and that is why we started the campaign. I am glad that after two years we have finally received an undertaking from the Government that they will appoint an independent panel to look not only at the documents held by the Department, but all the documents that we have. We have a lot of information that we think shows a medical and legal cover-up.

On the causal link, the Minister said that the victims’ association will be consulted. Every lady who took primodos said that it was the pregnancy during which they had taken that drug that resulted in abnormalities in children. Other children those same ladies went on to have were perfectly healthy—in those pregnancies, no primodos had been taken. This is important research and it needs to be looked at.

The Minister said that the numbers of victims may not be in the thousands. It is fair to say that as the campaign has gone on over the past two years, with limited coverage and publicity in my local newspaper and in the national media, I have received letters and e-mails from more and more people coming forward and saying, “This is what happened to us.” I think there are a lot more people out there. Perhaps this is something the independent panel can look at, because we think there are many more people who are unaware of what is happening.

I thank the Minister for what he has said at the Dispatch Box, which is that he will release and look at the documents, set up an independent panel, work with the victims’ association and also look at our documents.

[George Freeman]

What we might do is set up an expert working group and invite one or two patients’ representatives from the victims’ association to sit on it. If hon. Members are happy, I will write around with a suggestion for how we might do that. I want to just remind the House that those from the Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group are independent experts in their field. They currently advise the Commission on Human Medicines on issues relating to medicines for women’s health. All members must fully disclose any conflicts of interest and are disbarred from any discussions of issues where they hold a personal interest. I think the House can therefore be confident that these are independent experts. If we set up an expert working group and have patients on it, that should give the House confidence that victims’ and patients’ voices will be properly heard.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. I am sure that those from the victims’ association who are watching the debate will be reassured too.

I thank the Minister again for what the Department has offered to do. We hope it will be done speedily and that there will be a resolution. As we know, many of the victims are now approaching their 40s and 50s. Their medical conditions are worsening and some have died. It is important that they understand what has been happening. They have never, ever asked for this—they have never even suggested it—but perhaps after the investigation we could think about some kind of financial settlement or compensation. As I have said, this is something that I am saying. I think that that would be only fair after all their suffering.

Finally, I have spoken in the Chamber from time to time, but today is the first time that, when I came into the Chamber, I got a little butterfly in my stomach. It reminded me of when I was a barrister before I became a Member of Parliament. I would have that feeling when going into court for a special case of particular significance. When I came in I almost felt that I was going to present a legal case to ask for—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Does the hon. Lady intend to talk her own proposal out? If not, perhaps she should allow me to put the question now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that children were born with serious deformities due to hormone pregnancy test drugs taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975; also notes with concern that as the surviving victims enter their forties and fifties many of them face a host of new problems as their bodies continue to suffer; further notes that no official warnings were issued about these drugs until eight years after the first reports indicated possible dangers; further notes that some doctors continued to prescribe the drugs for pregnant women after official warnings from the Committee on Safety of Medicines; calls on the Secretary of State for Health to fully disclose all documents relating to the use of Hormone Pregnancy Tests held by the Department from the period between 1953 and 1978; and also calls on the Secretary of State to set up an independent panel to examine these documents.

Cyber-bullying and Digital Anonymity

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

16:59

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I wish to raise the matter of cyber-bullying and the abuse of online anonymity. I know that there are hon. Members for whom this is of deep concern, so I am happy to take interventions, and, if there is time, for colleagues to make short speeches, if that would be in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hate-tweeting trolls make people’s lives hell. They have got out of hand on social media, and we need to tackle them, but to paraphrase Tony Blair, we cannot just be tough on hate tweeting; we must be tough on the causes of hate tweeting. I suggest that we consider targeting the anonymity that hate tweeters use to harass people online. It is all too easy to set up a bogus account online and viciously stab at people from behind the curtain; ensuring that people could not set up anonymous accounts at will would force hate tweeters to be responsible for the hate they spew. They would be identifiable.

There is a deeper point. We need to promote kindness, courtesy and being yourself. When we bump into somebody on the street, we exchange pleasantries; when we engage in banter down the local pub, we have a fun time, generally; what we do not do is pretend to be someone else or hurl abuse and make threats without consequence. Why, then, does anyone think that that is okay on the internet?

I am particularly concerned for our young people, for whom cyber-bullying is a rising issue. According to ChildLine, 4,500 young people talked to the charity about online bullying last year, representing an 87% rise on the year before. The anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label surveyed more than 10,000 young people aged 13 to 22 as part of its annual cyber-bullying report in 2013 and found that 69% had experienced cyber-bullying at some point and that 37% had experienced it frequently. Most dishearteningly, 20% had experienced extreme cyber-bullying on a daily basis. Young people are twice as likely to be cyber-bullied on Facebook as on any other social network, with 54% of young people using Facebook reporting that they had experienced cyber-bullying. Facebook, Twitter and Ask.fm are the most likely places for cyber-bullying.

It is not just about the high-profile cases involving celebrities, people who have suffered great tragedy, such as the McCanns, or Members of Parliament who have been attacked. Well-known people are more likely to be reported on, but the problem is much more widespread than just a few famous people, and sometimes it ends in tragedy. In some cases, people have been so harassed online that they have been driven to take their own lives: Callum Moody-Chapman, in Cumbria; “Nadia”—the name given by the Italian media—in Italy; Erin Gallagher, in the Republic of Ireland; and Ciara Pugsley, also in the Republic of Ireland. It is important to make it clear that suicide often has many complicating factors, but we ignore these trends at our peril.

I have referred to well-known cases in the media of adults being cyber-bullied. There was the case of J. K. Rowling during the Scottish referendum; Emma Watson just for making a speech to the UN on feminism; and of course Judy Finnigan and Chloe Madeley. It is simply unacceptable. There are three pieces of relevant legislation: the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Communications Act 2003 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The legislation focuses on dealing with trolls when they have done damage, but we need to prevent that damage in the first place. Another problem is that the international reach of the internet makes it hard to tackle criminal acts in our justice system. The police need to be more proactive and effective in tackling the problem in a more organised fashion.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Is it not true, however, that even when the police are proactive and organised they are often met with the obstacle of large corporations, frequently based in the States, reluctant to hand over the information that would enable the police to identify and prosecute these trolls?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is one barrier; the other one, of course, is that people can just set up new accounts at will. They can do that through the dark net, and they can hide their IP addresses to make it harder to locate who they are. That is why I am coming to the point of saying that perhaps we should think about making people identify themselves if they want to set up an account, just as we have to do in so many other walks of life.

I recognise that the international nature of the internet makes it hard to tackle the criminality in this country, but I suggest that the police should make much more use of the Harassment Act 1997 rather than view this as a separate online problem. The behaviour is what they should go after. If behaviour is criminal, we cannot allow more latitude for it on the internet. There is not. Such behaviour should be subject to the same tests as if someone is confronted on the street with nasty face-to-face remarks.

I welcome the fact that the Justice Secretary has set out plans for serious cases of cyber-bullying to go to the Crown court and be subject to a sentence of up to two years. That is a welcome and encouraging start—a step in the right direction, saying that cyber-bullying is unacceptable. Nevertheless, let me set out three areas where we could go further.

First and most fundamentally, people need to take responsibility for their actions and not have the option of anonymity. We have cracked down on poison pen letters. Some of us may remember the problem of deep breathers—those who would pick up the phone and start calling random numbers and deep breathing at people to terrorise them down the line. Call logging put a stop to all that stuff, but now we need to deal with trouble caused when characters use anonymity to spout vitriol online. Anonymity, then, is the first issue.

Evidence suggests that people’s behaviour becomes worse when they are given anonymity, which is why it needs to end. Social media providers should ensure that they know people’s identity to discourage hate-filled attacks. If it is known who they are, people will not go around doing this sort of thing and neither will they be able to create multiple social media accounts to further their hate campaigns.

Some say, “We cannot do this; it undermines the principle of free speech. I should be able to say what I like.” I believe they are wrong to say that because the principle of free speech was dearly bought. People can state their own views in their own name. Mrs Mopp of Acacia avenue can say, “The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are completely hopeless and not up to their job”, but the secret police will not come for them in the middle of the night. That is what free speech is about. It is not a right to go around anonymously terrorising and harassing people. That is an abuse of free speech. It is not free speech; it is pure cowardice, and it should not be tolerated. Neither should we confuse the issue of privacy to surf the internet, which we all believe in, with the idea of privacy in aid of anonymity as a means of launching attacks on people. There should be no hiding place for trolls.

Secondly, there is the issue of educating children on digital responsibilities. We cannot protect children simply by blocking access to the internet and social media. That will not work. Young people are at the forefront of technological change, so we need to educate them to understand that their online behaviour will be judged just as much as their behaviour in real life. Just as we teach citizenship and British values in our schools, so we should educate our young people about their online responsibilities and the importance of respect there, as well.

Thirdly, international action is important. The internet is international: it knows no borders and it is changing all the time. Social media has existed for barely a decade, and the law needs to keep up with this rapid change. That is why we need international co-ordinated action. An organisation such as the OECD could play a serious role in co-ordinating what we all do collectively in the global village in which we live. Rogue nations that harbour trolls and online criminals can be tackled more effectively with international co-ordination.

To conclude, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is time to strip people of their anonymity on social media.

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

Before my hon. Friend concludes, I want to say that I think he will have an uphill struggle in managing to persuade people on an international basis that identity should be disclosed when people abuse the internet. He might find it rather easier, however, if firms were required at least to take down and block persistent abusers; and he might find it easier to get search engines to block firms that fail to do that. Perhaps he should include some of these more modest aims in his programme.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree that enforcement is a massive problem because of the international nature of the internet. The starting place should be to raise the issue and say that anonymity is the problem. It is the nature of the curtain that one could be stabbed from behind that we must look at and, having done so, we must ask how we pull back that curtain. First, we must get big social media organisations such as Facebook and Twitter voluntarily to make sure that they identify their users and take the actions suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Secondly, we must have international action to make sure that international laws and regulations are co-ordinated so that we can work in lockstep. I realise that this is a new area that will develop over the next five years. I suspect that the issue will increase in importance rather than decline.

I want to put ideas out there for us to consider. We need to look at anonymity. We need to educate our children about digital responsibility and hammer home the message that hate tweeting is wrong and that if anyone abuses others anonymously from their keyboard, they will be found out. That would stop in their tracks the people who con, who threaten and who terrorise. We must take back the internet from the weirdos, from the trolls and from the cowardly.

17:11

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

It is an honour and a privilege to respond on behalf of the Government this evening to this very important Adjournment debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) not only on securing the debate but on getting colleagues to come in on a Thursday evening and support him.

I apologise because I am probably not the lead Minister who would normally deal with this debate, but it is important that my Department—I sit in two Departments—which has responsibility for part of the work that needs to be done to address this important issue is represented at the Dispatch Box. The cross-governmental responsibilities here include the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to name a few. There are probably other Departments that feel they have responsibilities, not least given the Prime Minister’s interest in recent years.

An Adjournment debate this evening will not allow the issue to have the time it deserves. Far be it from me to suggest what the Backbench Business Committee should and should not do, but this is a very important debate that needs more air time than an Adjournment debate in the House can give.

It is also my belief, and that of the Government, that there is no difference in law between what one does online and what one does in public: what one does face to face is identical within law to what is done online. My hon. Friend quoted at least three Acts. My officials think that five Acts may be in place to help with the issue: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Malicious Communications Act 1998, the Communications Act 2003 and the Defamation Act 2013. They all apply to online trolls.

Perhaps I can address early on some of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised, particularly education. Education is very important. Since September 2014, not so long ago, e-safety has to be taught at all four key stages within the curriculum at our schools. It is massively important that young people have the education and knowledge that they need reinforced at every key stage going forward so that while they use the wonderful new media as much as possible, they understand the problems and dangers of internet bullying.

As my hon. Friend suggested, there are no boundaries or borders in this type of abhorrent behaviour. The internet is a wonderful thing, but I know as Minister responsible for child protection how dangerous the internet is in particular to young, vulnerable people.

I was in Washington at the beginning of the week before last, where I attended the global alliance conference on child online protection, and it was very obvious where the problems occur. It is an international problem; that is the case not only with trolling, but also with some of the other abhorrent things we see on the internet these days. People are earning huge amounts of money out of other people’s grief and poverty, and just getting a kick, frankly, out of abusing people online.

May I therefore reiterate again that in law there is no difference between standing in front of someone and abusing them and doing it online? That is very important, and we have seen some significant cases coming before the courts recently to make sure everybody understands that.

Let me touch briefly on three points, and in particular the anonymous nature of trolls. It is an obvious thing to say that someone should have their anonymity removed—or should they not have it in the first place? In the international spectrum, however, I do not want people living in Syria to have their anonymity taken away. I want people around the world who are living under repression to have the ability to tell the rest of the world what is going on in their countries—what is happening to them, to their families, to their political parties—without fear that their identity will be known.

In saying that, the police do have a way of finding out very quickly where such a communication came from. I know that myself as, sadly, my bank account was hacked fairly recently, but the IP addresses were made available enormously quickly by my internet bank to the police and subsequently arrests have been made. They cannot hide, therefore: “If you abuse someone using the internet, no matter what technology you use, invariably you will be discovered, and if you break the law, you will be prosecuted.” What we must do, however, is ensure people have the confidence to come forward, not necessarily directly to the police every time because it can be very difficult for young people to do that, but to someone they trust within their school or family or community, to tell them what is going on so we can prosecute.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Is not the problem that this would be regarded by the police as a pretty low priority unless it had reached a level of great seriousness, and therefore is not the solution, as I suggested before, that the main companies must have easy ways of reporting abuse before it gets to that level and that they should be likely to block it irrespective of whether or not the person’s identity is known?

[Mike Penning]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he has touched on a point I was coming to in the next few minutes. On his first point, this sort of offence can now be heard in the High Court and it does carry a penalty of up to two years. That is relatively new, but that actually happens. Standing here not as a Justice Minister but as the police Minister from the Home Office, I can say that the police should, and will, deal with this in the same way as they would deal with an offence offline. That is vitally important, and perhaps a message from the Dispatch Box from the police Minister to the police on that point this evening will not go amiss.

This country leads the way in working with these big companies. While I was in Washington the American Administration said to me that we have a rapport and a relationship and get things done with the big companies in a way that they do not. We need to use that relationship, and of course in early December there will be a global conference here in London, headed by the Prime Minister, on online protection of children and these sorts of issues will be discussed.

Trolls need to know that they will be prosecuted and that the action that will be taken is international. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will have international meetings in this difficult area. I will also let the Ministers in all the different Government Departments know what I have said at the Dispatch Box today, and tell them that we are coming together as a Government to ensure that we do this in a departmental way and that the lead Department leads the process. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing something about this.

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

I should like to thank the police in Merseyside for taking an online hate crime against me very seriously. This resulted in a conviction last week. What more can the Minister do, along with colleagues in other Departments, to encourage as many people as possible across the country to report any hate crime that they might experience, confident in the knowledge that the authorities will do something about it?

[Mike Penning]

I reiterate that that is exactly what we want people to do. We want them to have the confidence to come forward. In a perfect world, everyone—particularly young people—would have the confidence to go directly to the police. However, some people might not have the confidence to do that, and they might instead share the problem with their teacher, their tutor or their parents.

We have not touched on the responsibilities of parents. I speak as the father of two young ladies who would probably tell me that they are now much too independent to be given advice by their father. That does not mean that they are teenagers; they are slightly older than that. It is important that everyone takes responsibility for knowing what is going on. Earlier today, a victim was talking to me about this issue. The only reason that the problem had come to light was that her mother had noticed a sudden change in her behaviour. She had become quiet and secretive, and she was not as extrovert as she used to be. Her mother then found a diary that revealed what was going on.

I am conscious that many Departments need to pull together on this issue. We also need to pull together internationally. This is an enormously difficult subject for many people, whether they are famous and in the public arena or not. This also affects the forgotten ones, the youngsters and the little ones at school who are being abused by cyber-bullies. It is not acceptable and we will do everything in our power internationally and at home to ensure that cyber-bullies are removed from the internet.

Question put and agreed to.

17:22

House adjourned.

Petitions

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Petitions

Thursday 23 October 2014

Direct Bus Service from Hounslow West to West Middlesex Hospital

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Hounslow,

Declares that the Petitioners strongly believe that there needs to be a direct bus service from Hounslow West Tube Station, Bath Road, Hounslow TW4 to West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7; further that just over two years ago on 19 June 2012 the Petitioners wrote to the Operation Manager of Transport for London regarding the bus service and regret that the reply received from a Customer Service Adviser was not encouraging; further that the Petitioners provided four possible review options for one of the service routes which was turned down; further that in a reply on 11 July 2012 TfL noted that the entire bus network is reviewed on a regular basis to make sure that passengers are given the best possible service; further that the Petitioners replied to this letter of 11 July and are still awaiting a reply; and further that passengers travelling to West Middlesex Hospital have to change buses at Hounslow Bus Garage to visit admitted patients and attend appointments which the Petitioners believe can be particularly difficult for the elderly and disabled.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to liaise with the Mayor of London and Transport for London to ensure that a direct bus service from Hounslow West Tube Station, Bath Road, Hounslow TW4 to West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 is provided.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Seema Malhotra, Official Report, 22 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1356.]

[P001379]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

I recognise the importance of public transport for both the sustainability and independence of communities, and its valuable role in preventing isolation.

Under devolution, transport in London is the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) is the organisation charged with implementing the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. TfL is responsible for planning all London Buses services. TfL plans bus routes, specifies service levels such as hours of operation, frequency, and ensures service quality and performance. Bus services are operated by privately owned operating companies, which work under contract to London Buses.

My Department provides the Greater London Authority with a substantial transport grant for TfL, amounting to £1.744 billion for the current financial year 2014-15. It is for TfL and ultimately the Mayor of London to decide how best to prioritise spending the grant.

However, I strongly encourage bus operators, authorities and local communities to work together to decide how best to provide access to services for residents. In that regard, I fully support the consultation toolkit that was published in 2012 by Passenger Focus, the independent champion for bus, coach, rail and tram passengers.

Dualling of the A45

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Petitions

The Humble Petition of the residents of Wellingborough, Rushden and East Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That the Petitioners believe that the heavy traffic congestion on the A45 between Stanwick and the A14 at the Chowns Mill Roundabout is unacceptable because there are numerous accidents which result in serious injury and loss of life and further that the Petitioners believe that the main A road delays between the M1 and the A14 cause economic damage to the local and regional economy.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Transport to encourage Northamptonshire County Council and East Northamptonshire District Council to work together to ensure, as a matter of urgency, that the A45 is dualled between Stanwick and the A14 and that significant improvements are made to the Chowns Mill Roundabout including grade separation.

And your Petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr Peter Bone, Official Report, 10 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 1048.]

[P001386]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

The A45 between M1 Junction 15 and the A14 at Thrapston is a trunk road and part of the strategic roads network managed by the Highways Agency. The issues raised in the petition therefore fall to the Highways Agency to seek to progress.

The Highways Agency is aware of these issues and the concerns of the residents of Wellingborough, Rushden and East Northamptonshire. It is developing a route strategy which will consider this section of the A45 and look at the feasibility of dualling the Stanwick to Thrapston section and at the improvements needed to the Chowns Mill roundabout.

The route strategy will be completed within this financial year and will help to inform the Highways Agency future investment strategy for the period 2015-21. The Agency will continue working with Northamptonshire county council and East Northamptonshire council, once details of future funding are confirmed, as to how the issues raised in the petition may be addressed.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Westminster Hall

Thursday 23 October 2014

[Sir Alan Meale in the Chair]

Communicating Climate Science

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Eighth Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Communicating Climate Science, HC 254, and the Government Response, HC 376.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Damian Hinds.)

13:00

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

It is a pleasure to present the Select Committee on Science and Technology’s report in your presence, Sir Alan. I know that you take these matters extremely seriously and I hope that, in the remaining months of this Parliament, the House will spend some time talking about the challenges that face us.

The Committee published its report in March. In it, we examined the level of understanding among the public of climate change; what voices the public trust for information; how understanding could be improved; and the role of the media and the Government in so doing. Our inquiry was prompted by our concern about the mismatch between the public’s understanding of climate change and its causes and the Government’s, which is reflected in many Government policies. We concluded that there is an urgent need for action.

The results of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s tracking survey in March showed that although only 35% of respondents thought that climate change was caused mainly or entirely by human activity, 68% were very or fairly concerned about it. However, when respondents were asked to explain how or why, most failed to give a clear answer. More worryingly, many are still unaware of the high level of scientific consensus that climate change is significant and that it is caused by human activity.

Why is that, when the basic science has been well understood for many years? Each of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s five reports since 1990 has been increasingly confident about not only the causes of climate change, but the impacts that the planet is experiencing. The latest report says:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented”.

It also says:

“Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere”

and the “observed warming”. That seems to be a widely held view. Even—I will refer to this later—the Daily Mail eventually conceded to us in writing that it accepts a human element; what it did not agree with us about was what to do about that. The report continues:

“Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

The Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change’s inquiry in July concluded that the IPCC findings are based on

“thousands of peer-reviewed academic papers that together form a clear and unambiguous picture of a climate that is being dangerously destabilised.”

Despite that unequivocal scientific foundation, the IPCC’s processes still attract some criticism. It is not helpful to label those critics of the processes as “sceptics” or “deniers”, but the existence of that vocal minority is likely to reflect a much wider concern among the public in general that will require attention if the Government are indeed committed, as I believe they are, to their climate change policies.

The Committee was interested in where those critical of the IPCC process and the Government’s approach to climate change sought information and how those who were not actively engaged in the issue brought themselves up to speed. When people are asked where they get their information about science and climate change, the most common answer they give is the media—television, in particular. It was, therefore, somewhat disappointing that the BBC, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail all initially refused to provide evidence to our inquiry—it was not particularly surprising, though, as those three organisations have regularly been criticised for their inaccuracies or their failure to ensure balance when reporting on climate science.

Failures in the BBC are particularly concerning as it is the most utilised, and most trusted, source of information for the public. It seems bizarre that although the BBC takes great care not to create a false balance in politics—it would not put the Minister against someone from the Monster Raving Loony party in her constituency for a debate and consider that a matter of equals—in science it does create such an inequality. That is fundamentally wrong.

We considered that the BBC, as the country’s premier publicly funded broadcaster, had a greater responsibility to communicate scientific understanding properly, even if that meant compromising the potential for a good story. I think it is the potential to create a good story that tempts editors into creating the false balance that has sometimes occurred.

We did not consider the BBC’s policy of relying on individual editors’ abilities to judge the expertise of contributors to debates to be acceptable, especially as BBC news continued, even during the course of our inquiry, to allow opinion to be presented as fact and to use non-scientists to comment on climate science. It is clear that the BBC needs to develop editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate science.

The sensible recommendation for guidelines at the BBC led to my being accused of climate McCarthyism by a well known contributor to one of the publications I mentioned earlier. I am used to such accusations—a broad back is needed in this place—but that was typical of how, on serious matters, people resort to slinging mud rather than trying to have a rational discussion.

Thankfully, the BBC editorial complaints unit was much more constructive and sensible in its approach. It upheld a complaint—not by me—about the appearance of Lord Lawson, who, for all his talents, is not a scientist, on the “Today” programme opposite Sir Brian Hoskins, the most eminent scientist and professor of meteorology, to discuss the most recent IPCC report on climate science. The unit made it clear that, when appropriate, the opinion of minorities should be heard—in political terms we agree that the BBC should give some airtime to minority views—but, it conceded,

“it is important to ensure that such views are put into the appropriate context and given due, rather than equal, weight”.

I want to be clear. The Committee did not say that non-scientists should not be allowed to talk about the climate; nor did we say that Ministers should not be challenged on their use of science—we have sometimes found Ministers to have a looser grasp on scientific fact than we would like, but that is not the point. What we said was that, when climate science is being discussed, it should be discussed by scientists. Obviously, discussion of policy that may or may not derive from that science should be open to all. That interface, the use by the Government of the scientific expertise that they call on, has a well established methodology. In some cases it works brilliantly well, but it could be significantly strengthened in this case.

I would go further. I want everyone, not only people here in Parliament, to engage in the debate about climate policies that affect us. We have done that with other environmental subjects over the years. Think of some recent changes and campaigns ranging from those to clean up beaches to those to improve recycling and so on. They were done through a great deal of public engagement, but we do not seem to be as effective in respect of climate change policies.

Politicians do themselves and the general public a gross disservice when they attempt to dispute widely established, peer-reviewed science simply because they disagree with the proposed policies. It is perfectly in order for Parliament and Ministers to listen to scientific advice, but to come to different policy conclusions because of broader policy issues. That happens from time to time. It is simply wrong, however, that we should seek to dismiss science, as happens from time to time, as a way of dealing with something with which we do not agree in terms of the policy outcomes. That point was highlighted by a recent speech by a former Secretary of State.

Given the problems that we found with how climate science is debated and reported in the media, it was clear to us that the role of scientists and Government as communicators becomes even more relevant. While I have had the privilege of chairing the Select Committee in this Parliament, and virtually all the rest of my time in Parliament, I have worked on how the interface between science and policy works. Although an awful lot happens in this place, it is not enough. We need to help Members of Parliament to understand complex scientific matters in a more effective way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and I were at a hearing yesterday about complex matters to do with mitochondrial DNA. We have been bombarded by information. Some is based on misinterpretation of the science, while some mixes objections of an ethical nature—I respect people’s right to have such objections—with a misinterpretation of the science to produce the result wanted. We have to get away from that. We have to have a more coherent, evidence-based policy-making system.

The scientists and scientific bodies we spoke to all agreed that scientists need to communicate more and better. That can be difficult and is somewhat time-consuming. A while back, I spoke to a leading scientist who was in the early stages of research into genetically modified foods. He said that he found communicating impossible, adding, “Come and look at the scars on my back.” That is part of the problem. Some scientists, because of the way in which they have been treated when commenting on some things, have found it difficult to come into the public domain and talk with the kind of freedom that they should have in such complex debates.

Our report acknowledged the difficulties and the time consumed, but we were clear that scientists who are publicly funded and work in the climate science field, which is of such relevance to policy, ought to be under an obligation to communicate to a wider audience if that will aid public understanding. We fully endorse the chief scientist’s view that scientific research is not complete until it is communicated effectively.

Bearing that in mind, we were surprised that the Royal Society was also, originally, reluctant to contribute to our inquiry. We were disappointed to find a limited effort on the society’s part to communicate with the public on the issue, with no public meetings since 2010. It had, however, published a briefing on the science in February this year and held a meeting in July on the physics of climate change. That is in stark contrast to the sterling work of the society’s president, Sir Paul Nurse, who has spoken strongly in support of climate scientists and climate science. We welcome the efforts of the president, but would like to see more effort from the Royal Society itself, a publicly funded scientific body, to engage directly and inform the public at large.

The Government, in their response to our report, considered scientists to be the most important communicators about climate science and stated that all Government communication should be consistent with scientific peer review. We certainly agree. Information, however, needs to be put into context, but scientists who move on to talk about policy are inevitably seen as politicising their science. That has happened all too readily in climate politics. Each new piece of published research is quickly grabbed as supporting evidence, or trashed as biased or inadequate in one way or another. It is a challenge.

If scientists should talk science, it is obvious that politicians should talk the politics. For a policy issue that crosses so many political boundaries, a coherent message from all Ministers and their associated organisations is important. We found, however, little evidence during our inquiry of any significant co-ordination in Government or among Government agencies and bodies at national or local levels to communicate the implications of the science. That is despite the evidence that what the public want is clear, consistent communication and leadership from the Government on climate change. As far as the public are concerned, the most important communicator about climate change is the Government. At the moment, we think that they are failing.

Last year, a communications capability review of the Department of Energy and Climate Change found, unsurprisingly, that DECC had one of the smallest communications teams in Whitehall—it had been reduced too heavily in 2010—and that there was a clear need for a head of communication, a role that had been left vacant for more than two years before being filled in August. Unfortunately, after another gap, the post was refilled only two weeks ago.

It is difficult not to conclude that the Government’s failure to ensure adequate resources and continuity for the Department’s communications team may explain their inability to present a clear narrative about climate change, as indicated in our report. That lack of effective communication about climate change needs to be a priority for the new head of communication, as should the proper provision of resources have been. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

It is also disappointing to see so little progress since the Government published their response to us in June. I remind the Minister that we were told that a climate narrative would be finalised and made public shortly—I look forward to seeing it, but wonder how long “shortly” is. In Government, that sometimes means a long time away, but we produced a serious report, so I expect a serious definition of “shortly” to emerge today.

We were also told that the Department would be improving the presentation of climate science on gov.uk—not much has happened—and that it would establish a science expert communications group and a cross-Government climate change communications group. I would like to know what has happened to that proposal. When are the groups going to start communicating? Will they have a mechanism to communicate with Members with regard to our role of communicating with our constituents? The Government were also to publish a joint communication with learned societies and national academies.

Those are all welcome, positive steps in the right direction, but there is little, if any, evidence of progress. We are told that a climate narrative is still due shortly, as is the update of gov.uk. The only development is that there is now a cross-Government climate change communications group, but details are minimal and we do not know how frequently it meets, what it discusses or with whom it communicates—is it just with Ministers or with the broader civil service? Is it intended to engage with Parliament? I would also be interested to know what is on its agenda.

A year and a half after we announced our inquiry and six months after the publication of our report, it is quite disappointing that so little progress has been made. At the same time, the need for effective communication and engagement on the issue is greater than ever. Will the Minister provide us with some idea of when we can expect clear and measurable progress in implementing the Government’s proposals, many of which were suggested in our report? That would go some way to addressing some of the issues I have raised today.

In conclusion, there is a broad understanding across the House that there is nothing simple about the messages that need to be communicated. Responsibility for the issue spills over into several Departments, ranging from those responsible for the BBC through to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, DECC and so on. There needs to be a joined-up narrative designed to help us do a job that is immensely complicated. Taking scientific messages to our constituents is difficult.

I raised a scientific issue on the Floor of the House yesterday, because there is a huge amount of misinformation about hydraulic fracturing, an issue on which I happen to agree with the previous Secretary of State. Science messages are being dominated by people with a pre-cast agenda. We have to get away from that and deal with things as they truly are, not as some people would have us believe. In presenting this report on behalf of my Committee, I hope that we will see some progress. We are dealing with very long-term issues, so I hope there can be a high degree of cross-party consensus.

13:53

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, on his final point. It is important to separate scientific fact, evidence and theory from policy making. When policy making and science collide, there are often the most horrific difficulties, as people who want to change the policy try to change the scientific facts. We have seen that with stem cell research and we are seeing it at the moment on mitochondrial replacement therapy. People with quite genuine and reasonable ethical objections try to distort the science to get the policy they want.

There are particular difficulties around climate science, both in this country and internationally. Professor Trewavas, a fellow of the Royal Society, pointed out in his evidence to the Committee the fundamental difficulty of climate science, which is that there is not a single scientist on the planet who can distinguish between natural variation in climate and those changes in the climate system that are caused by anthropogenic interference. Nobody can do that, which is why climate models are so important in the debate on climate science.

The difficulty is that models do not conform easily to normal scientific method and analysis. The basis of science and the scientific method—Karl Popper laid down probably the clearest basis for it—is that hypotheses can be tested and things can be disproved. That is extraordinarily difficult with models. We must realise that a lot of climate science is based on models, not on the normal scientific method under which we can disprove and falsify hypotheses. That is a difficulty.

[Andrew Miller]

Just for clarity, when my hon. Friend had a proper job, a long time ago, he was a chemist. Will he confirm that his argument applies to any science in which we cannot see and touch the evidence? For example, some aspects of astronomy and palaeontology would fit in that category.

[Graham Stringer]

When we cannot repeat experiments, as we cannot with astronomy, we get into a difficult but different area. There is a difference between climate science and astronomy and cosmology, because of the ability to make and test direct observations in a way that is particularly difficult when we are relying on computer models. My hon. Friend makes an intelligent and sensible point, but cosmology and astronomy are not quite the same as climate science.

My point is that it is not just non-scientists who have become enthusiasts for policy, but scientists as well. Many of my views on climate science were formed during the investigation that the previous Science and Technology Committee and this one carried out into the “Climategate” e-mails from the university of East Anglia. I am not going to go down the path of analysing that case—although we have a lot of time, so I suppose one could—but from reading those e-mails and talking to the people involved, I came to the firm conclusion that, at best, those scientists were guilty of noble cause corruption. They believed so fundamentally in what they were doing and the policies that they wanted that some of their scientific work was below the standards one normally expects. Professor Kelly of the university of Cambridge, who was part of the panel that looked at the work of those scientists, said that their methodology had turned 300 years of the scientific method on its head. It was also clear that they were not using the latest and best statistical methods, and they could not even reproduce their own work because they had lost the papers. That is not science but narrative. That case informs a lot of the discussion about climate science.

When looking to communicate something, we need to know what we are talking about. The first lesson in debate and discussion for undergraduates is to define the terms, so that they know what they are talking about. Many discussions, both political and undergraduate, could be saved if people made it clear at the start what they were talking about.

Every witness was asked for their definition of climate change and the answers were interesting. The Committee concluded that the best definitions of climate change were given by Professor Slingo of Reading university and the Met Office and Professor Rapley. Basically, they talked about the energy imbalance in the earth and the disruption to the climate. We thought they gave good definitions.

We would have expected the Department to have a definition that the Minister understood, or at least had one at its finger tips. I am pleased to see the new Minister in her place, but I have to say that one of the crassest statements I have ever heard from a Minister at a Select Committee—I have served on many Select Committees over the past 17 years—was when the previous Minister of State was asked for his definition of climate change. He said:

“Climate change is climate change.”

That was less than useful. When I asked him to be a bit more helpful, he said,

“Climate change is a change in climate.”

That was not much more use. He then said that he did not think it was a technical term.

It was bad enough that the then Minister was not in agreement with senior scientists or even with the Government’s scientific adviser, who gave us a perfectly sensible definition, with a slightly different emphasis. I was surprised that the Government said in response to the Committee’s report, in which we said which two definitions we preferred, that they did not agree with the scientific adviser and were not sure what definition they were using. They said:

“However, we also note that the term ‘climate change’ does not apply just to the physical manifestation of a changing climate, but also actions to address human influence on the climate.”

That rather extends the definition. They continued:

“For example, the scientific definition of ‘climate change’ based on Professors Slingo’s and Rapley’s definition does not explain the use of ‘climate change’ in the acronym ‘DECC’. In this case ‘climate change’ means not just the physical manifestation but also steps taken in the UK and internationally to reduce”

greenhouse gas emissions

“and other human impact of the climate.”

There is a Humpty Dumpty element in that—words will mean whatever we choose them to mean. That is not helpful.

The first thing the Government should do if they want to communicate effectively on what climate change is and what they mean by it is to agree on a definition and what action is required. The Government do not agree and give the definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but they want to extend that as well. That is an unsatisfactory position for any Government and it is not surprising that climate science and climate change is not communicated effectively if Ministers, scientific advisers and the Department do not agree on the same words.

One statement is that there is consensus on climate science and climate change. That is sometimes used to close down debate. The Science Media Centre said:

“Climate change is real and man made.”

We heard that in a number of forms throughout the Committee’s hearings. A previous Minister said that the consensus is now beyond debate and that the BBC should not be interviewing people who do not accept it. It is worth looking at the consensus and at what it means. I will quote evidence that was given not to our Committee, but to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change.

Robin Guenier who, as far as I am aware, has done the only academic research into what is meant by the consensus, references Doran and points out that his results in the scientific literature and the 97% claim is based on consideration of only 79 of 10,257 earth scientists who were surveyed. He then referred to a study by Anderegg, who found that the 97% claim was based on a very limited sample of researchers whose opinion was asked for. He discounted 472 of respondents. Similarly, Cook concluded that there was overwhelming consensus, but that was from a survey of about 12,000 scientific papers, so he was looking at secondary sources.

Basically, Guenier’s view was that anyone who believes that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has some influence is part of that consensus. That is not really where the argument is. He then moves on to two other studies, discounting the statistic of 97% and looking at a survey by the American Meteorological Society. It is worth quoting from that because, again, the previous Minister did not like it. It states:

“Only 52% of respondents thought global warming was happening and was mostly anthropogenic; moreover, at most 34% (and probably less) believed warming was happening, was mostly anthropogenic and would be ‘very harmful’”.

Therefore, the debate on this issue relies on a belief that 97% of scientists believe there will be some climate catastrophe because of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The evidence from scientific literature does not support that 97%.

Finally from that submission, I want to quote Xie Zhenhua, who led China’s delegation to the recent UN planet science conference in Warsaw. He stated:

“There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude.”

He is not an obscure scientist. When people say there is consensus that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and has an impact on the climate, the evidence does not extend to the belief that carbon dioxide will do major damage to the planet.

Last week, Steven E. Koonin—again, he is not an obscure scientist, but was the Under Secretary of Energy for Science, in the United States Department of Energy, and one of Obama’s senior scientific advisers—made a statement. By profession, he is a computational physicist. He clearly makes the point that there is consensus that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but the real question he believes should be answered is:

“How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influence?”

He says that the answer is extremely difficult to determine. He believes that the carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere at the moment is responsible for only about 1% of the changes taking place. More interestingly, he points out that we do not know very much about the ocean and how it interacts with the rest of the system. We certainly do not understand probably the most critical part of the computer models, which is the feedback mechanism. It is not even clear whether feedback, when things warm up, will be positive or negative: whether feedback will intensify the increase in temperature or whether—because, at its simplest, there is less cloud cover—it will reduce the effects. Nobody knows that.

Mr Koonin talks in detail, because it is his specialism, about the computer models. He points out that the grids used within the computer models have a 60-mile resolution. That is a very big grid to have on the earth. Within those boxes, someone then has to change the average temperature and humidity, and work out how the carbon dioxide and the heat it traps affects the temperature and the humidity. He points out that dozens and dozens of assumptions are put into those boxes, because the resolution is so big, so they are adjusted. Adjustments and assumptions are effectively the same word—one could also use the word “fiddle”, because if someone is changing things that they do not know, they can change them to get the results that they wish.

The models cannot, by and large, reproduce the current situation and they imperfectly represent the past. There are huge, detailed differences between the 55 models that the IPCC uses. Rather than looking across the piece and seeing whether there is a consensus among scientists on the big issue—which there is not—if we look in detail at the modellers who are at the core of the climate change debate, we find that because they make different adjustments in their models, there is no consensus there either, and there are often huge differences in their predictions.

Many hon. Members in previous debates have pointed out that all but about 3% of the models that are used are running hot—in other words, they are over-predicting the temperatures that the earth is experiencing. It is not clear from the models why, when there has been a 25% increase in carbon dioxide, there has been effectively no rise in temperature. There is no clear explanation, and that is not covered by the models. The other basic theory with the models, which is well known by people who look at these things, is that the models predict that there will be increased warming in the atmosphere near to the earth’s surface in the tropics. Those hotspots have not been observed.

[Andrew Miller]

I think my hon. Friend answered his own question when he said earlier that we simply do not understand feedback mechanisms as well as we would like to, particularly in respect of the impact of the oceans on both absorbing CO₂ and the massive variations in temperatures. They are so poorly understood that that ought to be a call for a massive scientific study on our deep oceans.

[Graham Stringer]

I essentially agree with that, but there are two other points to mention. First, the stats on the temperature in the ocean, as well as other ocean statistics, such as salinity, are very recent. We know very little about what has been happening in the oceans over the last 30 or 40 years. Records go back between eight and 20 years. Secondly, as my hon. Friend knows, we as a Committee supported the Met Office’s bid for a supercomputer, which will certainly improve weather forecasting and bring the resolution of forecasting down. It may also help the Met Office with getting its models right. I am always in favour of increasing knowledge and improving understanding, but the real point I was making—by going through those different papers and what Obama’s scientific adviser was saying—is that much of the Government’s policy is based on the belief that climate science at present is settled, and it is not, because nobody knows the answers to those questions.

Having shown that, I want to pick up two or three other points. We had some interesting sessions with the BBC, BSkyB, Channel 4 and different experts on the media. Clearly, they are slightly wary of this subject, because passions run so high. It is fair to say, if we look at the BBC first, that it does not have as much expertise in science as one would wish it did. Most of the journalists are Oxbridge educated on the arts side, not on the science side. The BBC agreed to try to increase its journalists’ knowledge of science, but when we asked the representative from BBC which scientists it would get to do that, I was disappointed that the answer was none—that is, they are going to have their knowledge improved by other journalists, not by scientists.

Because the BBC is criticised from both sides, it has made real efforts to improve its coverage of climate science and climate change, but I am not convinced that it has got it right. It asked for a report from Professor Steve Jones, who is a well respected professor of genetics—I am slightly in awe of Professor Jones when it comes to genetics; I have read his books, and he is a brilliant man and a good communicator.

However, to go back to the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was having about whether climate scientists should be the people to talk about climate science on the BBC, Professor Jones was an odd person to choose to advise the BBC on climate science. We had a private meeting with him—which was interesting, because I was a bit star-struck on meeting him—and I did not think his answers were really adequate, because he was looking at secondary and tertiary phenomena. He seemed to think the fact that the Thames gate had been raised more times than was predicted was in some way evidence that global warming and climate change was happening, and I do not think it is. Rather, it is evidence that the gate has had to be raised a number of times. One of the interesting facts about climate change is that, with all the extra carbon dioxide that has been put into the atmosphere, the rise in sea level, which is about a foot a century, has continued at almost exactly the same rate.

The BBC, fortunately, did not accept Professor Jones’s recommendation that climate science was settled. It says its remit is to give everybody a say and to give the opportunity for different views in British society to be explained to the rest of our country. The difficulty with that—this comes back to the Lord Lawson debate that goes on—is whether non-scientists should be able to talk about scientific issues. Should someone only be a climate scientist to talk about climate science?

I was a scientist some time ago. I have read some of the papers. Can I therefore debate and discuss climate science? I think I can. I would not pretend to be an expert in climate science, but I am scientifically trained enough to be able to understand those papers. When it comes to policy, because a lot of the argument about the science is settled, the aim is to stop not just the debate about the science, but the debate about the policy impact. People have to be careful that by trying to restrict debate in that way, they do not stop the production of better policy.

It is true that the media, as I said at the beginning, tend to be ignorant of science, and I cannot leave this subject without giving two examples. One is slightly old. “The World This Weekend”, a few years ago, put the tsunami in Thailand down to climate change, which would be a surprise to most scientists and geologists. A few weeks ago, The Times, in one of its editorials, declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we would all be dead. Plants need carbon dioxide; we need plants—end of story. It is not a pollutant. The amount in the atmosphere goes up and down. That just indicates how bereft of scientific training many journalists are.

It was quite an achievement to reach a consensus, whereby we all voted for the same report in the Committee, because clearly we place different emphases on matters, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about the IPCC as a resource for knowledge in this area and was saying that it should be respected. I do not agree. I think the IPCC should be disbanded, for a number of reasons. It is a political process. It claims to be a scientific body, but it is not. It holds its discussion on how the IPCC report is produced in private. When I say “in private”, a number of lobbying groups—green groups—go along. It comes to its conclusions based on compromise between those groups.

At the last meeting, the IPCC increased the size of the report by five pages and took out 700 words. Then it decided, having changed the summary, that it would change the basic documents underlying it to be consistent with the summary, which I think is a perverse process. The IPCC should be much more transparent or should be changed, not least because we need reports more often than every seven years on this issue as science improves.

The surprising thing about the IPCC is that as temperatures have flattened out over the last 16 or 17 years, and as its models have failed to predict that, it now has greater confidence in its results. I find that a strange conclusion—when people predict something incorrectly, they then say they have more confidence in the results.

I want to finish with two points. This is a serious debate. It is disappointing that so few hon. Members are present. A great deal of Government expenditure is based on a belief that there will be catastrophic climate change. The evidence for that is very limited. All energy policies should include the following. Security of energy supply, so that the lights do not go out, is the top priority. Cost to the consumer, both industry and the individual, is the second priority; and the third priority is how much carbon dioxide and pollutants are being put into the atmosphere.

At the moment, it is an act of genius by Government—this is not a party political issue, because the previous Government followed very similar points—to be responsible for putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would otherwise have been the case, because our carbon footprint is increasing at present; for them to have prices higher than they otherwise would be for some of the poorest people in the country and to be de-industrialising parts of the country; and for them to manage that when there is a greater probability and risk that the lights will go out. That is an energy policy based on a misunderstanding of the science, which could be disastrous for individuals.

This is a highly fraught area. I was appalled when I listened to “The Life Scientific” a few months ago, when Professor Julia Slingo was on, to realise that she had been vilified and been the centre of a campaign of abuse by people who think that she has got the science wrong. That is completely unacceptable. The vast majority of scientists involved in this area are honest, diligent researchers coming up with decent scientific papers. Some of their work is misrepresented. I think that a small number of scientists at the university of East Anglia have fallen below the standard I would expect for scientists.

There is that kind of vilification on one side and there is the vilification of Lord Lawson, who is not of my political party. He has tried to enhance the debate, particularly on the policy side. He has said—I would not go quite this far with him—“Accept that climate change is happening as people say. What is the right policy response?” I think he has enhanced that debate, but, again, he comes in for a great deal of vilification from the other side. If we are to understand the science better and to get better policies than we have at the moment, that nastiness, which should not be part of any political discussion and certainly any scientific discussion, should cease.

14:27

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

I intend to make only a very brief contribution to the debate on the report by the Science and Technology Committee, “Communicating climate science”, but I did feel that it was important to come along, listen and give some perspective from the point of view of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. As hon. Members on both sides will know, that is a cross-cutting parliamentary Select Committee; it looks right across the board at different Departments.

Unsurprisingly, our Committee has spent a lot of time looking at climate science and climate change. The overarching theme that comes out of virtually all our inquiries is that looking at environmental issues, from whatever perspective, should not be a matter for just one Department, one business, one sector or one section of the media to deal with. It needs to be brought together in a cross-cutting way. It seemed to me that the conclusions of the Science and Technology Committee report were doing just that, so I felt that it was important to come along and take part in the debate.

I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), on securing the debate. It is important that we discuss work that Select Committees of the House have done. However, much as I welcome the support for and the emphasis on sound science, the integrity of science and the importance of science not being exploited for short-term political expediency, I think that what the report is really trying to say is that there must be an overall strategy from Government for communicating climate science. I believe that that is very important.

I was heartened to see that the report was unanimous; there was no minority report. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), however, I wonder whether there was complete unanimity.

[Graham Stringer]

It was a remarkable work.

[Joan Walley]

It certainly was remarkable, because when I listened to my two hon. Friends, I did not get the sense that I was hearing about the same report. In fact, I looked at their body language to see whether there was any difference from what was said in the report, and I did not see that either.

Climate change is the most important issue that we face locally, nationally and internationally, so it is strategically important that we communicate the science of climate change in as robust a way as possible, having regard to the facts. After that, what matters is policy, and the support that politicians receive for those policies. If we do not have the trust of the British public for the policies that we want to implement on climate change and climate science, we will not get the policy outcomes that we so urgently require. That is why I had misgivings when I was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton.

For me, the most important thing is that, as even the Prime Minister stated during Prime Minister’s questions on 26 February in response to questions about the winter floods,

“man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats that this country and this world face.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 255.]

He spoke about the UK’s carbon budgets and the importance of long-term investment. Hon. Members from both sides of the House know that we are at an important stage in the international negotiations that are taking place, which we hope will be completed in Paris in 2015.

This week, there are also important negotiations going on in the European Commission about the target of reducing carbon emissions by 40%. There is great concern that even if that proposal goes through, we will still be moving away from our target of keeping warming within 2° C. Negotiations are under way and huge decisions are being taken, and it will be incumbent on Ministers to return to the House and do the best that they can on those negotiations.

If Members of Parliament, let alone members of the public, have no awareness of the science of climate change, we will not have the public trust that we need to achieve the required outcomes. I do not think that future generations will forgive us if we do not achieve those outcomes, because the clock is ticking. Indeed, Lord Prescott talked about stopping the clock in the negotiations that took place in Durban. We are in an urgent situation, and I believe that the overall recommendation in the report—that the Government must communicate climate science—is exactly what is needed to bolster and support the international discussions.

For that reason, I hope that the Minister—I welcome her to her new position—will set out whether and how the Government will draw up a climate change communication strategy and ensure that it is implemented consistently across Departments. Perhaps she could give us more detail than was provided in the Government’s response to the report. As part of that work, will she have further talks with other bodies, especially the BBC? We have heard a lot about the BBC, and many Members have met and challenged the corporation about its inclination to run with controversial stories rather than taking on board existing climate science, saying that there is a problem and asking what should be done about it. That would be the proper focus for discussion.

Communication is not only about the Government’s having a communication strategy for climate science, but about campaigns to increase public awareness. I was interested in the reference in the report to the education model, because I believe that there should be a duty to promote sustainable development in the national curriculum. That is the only way to encourage youngsters to be aware of sustainable development and engage with climate science throughout primary school, secondary school, college and university, so that whatever their chosen job or career, they will be sensitive to climate science and sustainable development. That awareness will influence the work that they do, and that will contribute to the Government’s strategy for meeting the 2° C objective. We need a communication strategy, but we also need to look at what we are doing in education.

I have looked at the computer model for teaching climate science in schools, and I do not think that there is a great understanding of that model. I was speaking to somebody yesterday about the Canadian Parliament’s green citizenship programmes. I think that environmental issues are all part of the citizenship agenda, and far more can be done through the curriculum to sensitise young people to such issues, whether they go to university or train to be plumbers. At the core, it is essential to get the science right and communicate it.

We are talking about a huge subject. We have seen from situations such as the floods and the take-up of the green deal that there is insufficient public awareness and understanding to support the necessary policies. Education is key, and it is not possible without a communication strategy. Whatever the politics inside the Select Committee when this unanimous report was agreed, I hope that because of the evidence submitted to the Committee and the urgency of the need to address climate change issues, a long-term benefit of the report will be a wider response from the Government in addition to their written response.

The Environmental Audit Committee has published several reports on related issues, such as carbon budgets and energy subsidies. We also published a follow-up report on the progress made on carbon budgets. If we are to achieve the correct energy policies, which take account of security of supply, affordability and climate security, the whole country needs to have an understanding of UK policy. That relates back to the importance of understanding the science. I hope that the report will help us to fulfil the need for an overarching communication strategy based on science, rather than on the sceptical science that we occasionally hear too much about.

14:38

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), on securing this important debate. I am not a scientist, but listening to the two members of the Select Committee, I could see where some of the problems lie. Much of the language in discussions about climate change science is not very usable for the average person on the street. Sitting here and listening, we sometimes struggle to understand exactly what is being said. That is part of the problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned how journalists are being taught how to report this stuff by other journalists. There is a point in that, and perhaps a bit more specialism is needed within journalism. I always say that the people who best put across issues of complex science are those who really understand the fine technical detail, because they are able to explain it in everyday language. It is the same with good teachers. Some important points have been raised on that issue, which is why this is an important debate.

The debate is timely, as there are two events with huge ramifications for the UK taking place in the next year. The first is the general election, and the second is the United Nations climate change conference in Paris. It is essential to have in the public domain a simple, clear, evidence-based narrative about climate change, its causes and likely impacts.

I could not agree more with the Government’s submission to the report; I only wish sometimes that the Government’s actions matched their rhetoric on this issue—I am not referring to the Minister. It is perhaps an understatement to suggest that the Government are guilty of mixed messages, with differing views on the severity, consequences and even the existence of climate change coming out of different Departments. The report repeatedly makes a point about the lack of coherence in Government climate policy and communications, and I think that point is well founded.

Until just a few months ago, the Government had a Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who holds views that run counter to the scientific consensus. His greatest hits include:

“the climate has always been changing.”

He has also said that wind farms are “clearly a massive waste” of everyone’s money, and that:

“People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.”

That is somewhat disconcerting coming from a man who was in charge of the UK’s climate change adaptations.

14:42

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

14:43

On resuming—

[Julie Elliott]

As I was saying, the former Secretary of State’s words were somewhat disconcerting coming from a man who was in charge of the UK’s climate change adaptation. His successor as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), seems to be carrying on in that vein. Just a few days ago, her Department announced that it would remove a common agricultural policy subsidy from solar developments, under the curious logic that solar farms have caused the UK to become an importer of apples.

That is further evidence of a Government who have no joined-up voice on renewable energy and climate change, and who are more interested in sensationalist headlines than sound policy. The Prime Minister promised to lead the “greenest Government ever”, but just a few years later he was reported as saying that he would cut “the green crap”. These inconsistencies in communications have far-reaching consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston put very well the point about the media not being balanced in their reporting of climate change—pitting scientists against non-scientists—and I totally agree with his analysis of that unbalanced reporting.

We combat climate change by developing a low-carbon energy mix, including renewables, new nuclear, and carbon capture and storage. Incoherent messages from the Government and the media undermine both investment in the low-carbon sector and our response to the threat of climate change, which is real. As David Kennedy, the former chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, put it so clearly:

“Not investing in renewables only makes sense if you don’t want to meet our emissions targets.”

Record investment in electricity generation under the last Labour Government has collapsed under the coalition and a fifth of our capacity is coming offline in the next decade. That creates a squeeze on our security of supply. Only last month, the UK slipped to seventh place on EY’s energy attractive index for investment in renewables, with EY referring to Government “policy tinkering” and saying that

“conflicting signals…become too much for investors…to handle.”

The Select Committee’s report feeds in to so many of my meetings with renewable energy developers; the mixed-up messaging emanating from Government about our commitment to reducing our carbon emissions through low-carbon technologies gets raised every time I meet developers. Every Conservative-Lib Dem row, whether real or for public relations purposes, is another hammer blow to investment in low-carbon technologies. Of course those rows get reported, so even when the media are accurately reporting what is said, they are again sending out mixed messages to the public.

We cannot expect investors to put their money into low-carbon technologies if they hear expressions of different levels of commitment on climate change from different Departments. It is with great regret that I have seen the cross-party consensus that we had before the 2010 election crumble. Just five MPs voted against the Climate Change Act 2008. I want to be entirely clear: it was not Labour that broke that consensus. We understand the importance of speaking with a clear message on climate change.

It must be both frustrating and confusing for members of the public to hear, on the one hand, that averting catastrophic climate change is the great challenge of our time, which it is, and, on the other, that the Chancellor wants to water down the implementation of the fourth carbon budget, that Britain should go no faster than the rest of Europe, that wind farms are pointless and that solar PV is a blight on our communities. The reporting of these issues is often misleading and sometimes verges on the hysterical.

In the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report, I am pleased to see an admission that Departments could operate in a more joined-up manner. I will give just one example of where there is a lack of joined-up working: planning for onshore wind. I asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what discussions he had had with his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government about such planning, and the answer came back: none.

The Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s independent advisory body, has warned the Government about their mixed messages on climate change. For example, the CCC supports a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target, as do Labour and large renewable energy developers such as Siemens, yet the Government have refused to set such a target. For the sake of clarity, I should add that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change supports the target, but voted against it.

I hope that the Government look again at the recommendations of the Select Committee’s report, and in particular that they speak with one voice on climate change.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister speaks, may I say that I welcome her move to a new role on the Front Bench? It is well deserved. You are a former member of the Council of Europe, Minister, and I am sure that your great knowledge of greater Europe will serve you well in your new post.

14:58

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

Thank you very much indeed, Sir Alan, for those words, and I also thank you for chairing this debate.

In addition, I thank the members of the Science and Technology Committee for their hard work in preparing this report during the past year. I welcome the findings of the Committee’s inquiry into communicating climate science, and I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for presenting them so clearly to us at the start of this debate.

As we said in our response, the Government must communicate what we are doing to address the risks that climate science has revealed, but communicating climate science is just one part of communicating the wider issue of climate change. Let us be clear that these are two interrelated but distinct discussions. Scientists, as independent and trusted experts, must take the lead in communicating science, and we in government must focus on communicating our responses to scientific facts.

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

The scientific consensus is overwhelming: the fact is that climate change is happening and people are causing it, and we need to take urgent action to avoid dangerous climate change. Global climate change is already being seen around the world. Nine of the hottest years ever measured were in the past 12 years; heat waves have become more frequent and are lasting longer; the height of extreme sea levels caused by storms has increased; and oceans are acidifying and becoming fatally unhealthy for sea life. These facts are well known by members of the Committee but these changes are neither mysterious nor unexpected.

In 1988, the UN General Assembly was told that

“human activities could change global climate patterns”.

Mrs Thatcher, a scientist, took note and showed global leadership. She said:

“It’s we Conservatives who are not merely friends of the earth—we are its guardians and trustees for generations to come...No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease. This government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full.”

When the Prime Minister addressed the UN General Assembly this September, for the Secretary-General’s summit on climate change, he demonstrated that we will stand by those words.

This is a timely debate, coming just before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finalises its fifth assessment synthesis report in Copenhagen. This report will bring together the findings of the three working groups covering the fundamental science on climate change, future risks and options for responding. I thank the Energy and Climate Change Committee for its inquiry into the IPCC’s report on the physical science basis of climate change. I welcome the Committee’s finding, which was that the IPCC procedures were robust, just as its conclusions are stark. The fifth assessment report represents the most up to date and comprehensive review of the science of climate change. It also provides an excellent vehicle for communicating climate science and will inform the international negotiations in Paris next year.

The science has spoken. As the Government, our priority is to communicate the actions we are taking in response. We must explain how the science underpins our actions, even if communication of science must be led by the scientists. In direct response to the Committee’s recommendations, we have taken action. I am delighted to say that we have updated our climate science brief on gov.uk, which went online earlier today.

[Andrew Miller]

Ah, we have stimulated something!

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman, speaking from a sedentary position, is absolutely right. We have taken action as a result.

We are also setting up an expert group to advise the Government and others on communicating climate science.

[Joan Walley]

I am interested to know who is on the expert group. Will the Minister elaborate on that?

[Amber Rudd]

I am not moving on from the expert group yet. I will say a few words about that. The matter was brought up in some detail by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. We want to ensure that this group has an effective role and we are talking to those who are likely to be involved. We have set up the group and my Department has also set up the cross-Government climate change communications group and developed a cross-Government narrative, which climate science is part of.

The cross-Government communications group is composed of working-level officials invited from all Departments. It has met twice so far, in June and again on 15 August, and it will continue to meet for the foreseeable future. In the first meeting, 12 Departments attended, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The Scottish Government are also included. We also had representatives from the Department for International Development, the Treasury, the Environment Agency and the Met Office. That is another example of action following Committee recommendations.

My Department’s new chief scientific adviser, Professor John Loughhead, whom I was delighted to meet yesterday, on his first day, will have an active role in promoting understanding in this area, following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Professor David MacKay. The Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, will of course also play an integral role. The Government will continue to work with the academies, learned societies and other experts, including the Met Office, to help ensure that authoritative scientific voices on climate science are more readily available to the general public.

However, most people do not need, or indeed want, to understand the detailed science; they want to understand what they can do. The good news is that the public in the UK understand that climate change is a serious issue. More than two thirds of people in the UK are concerned about climate change. This is a strong mandate for all political parties to take ambitious action to tackle climate change. That underpins this Government’s actions to seek an ambitious global deal in Paris next year and our policies to reduce UK emissions entrenched in the Climate Change Act, helping towards achieving our commitment of an 80% reduction of emissions by 2050.

[Graham Stringer]

Does the Minister agree with me and the Government’s chief scientific adviser that, although emissions are reducing, this country’s responsibility for putting increased amounts of carbon into the atmosphere has increased as we have imported more manufactured goods? Although one can boast about reduced emissions, actually there is a perverse consequence, which is that this country is responsible for more carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere.

[Amber Rudd]

The Government’s overall aim must be not only to reduce its own emissions, but to share that ambition with other countries. Even though we may slow down and—eventually, we hope—reduce this country’s emissions, that way of doing things is going to be really successful only if we bring other countries with us.

Although a small group—we may have a member of that group in this Chamber—is highly sceptical about action on climate change, fewer than one in 10 people in the UK think the benefits of tackling climate change are outweighed by the risks. In fact, six times as many people believe that the benefits of action outweigh the risks.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) challenged some views held strongly by other people, but he is in a distinct minority. I take issue with his wider point about this Government’s strategy, which is to reduce the emissions and the costs and to provide security of supply to consumers. It is wrong to characterise that strategy as in any way disadvantaging people who are worse off, because our clear plan is to ensure that the most vulnerable are always helped as much as possible. We do that through a number of strategies, led by my Department, particularly through the eco-subsidy, which is directed at the vulnerable.

Our challenge is to explain why climate change matters when people are concerned quite rightly about jobs, the economy and the cost of their energy bills. We must continue to talk about the risks posed by climate change, including risks of floods and heat waves, which have already increased in the UK, and the need to take action to avoid the unacceptable risks of sudden and irreversible climate disruption. However, alongside these risks, we must talk about the benefits that can flow from tackling climate change.

Our priority for communicating on climate change is to make sure that the importance and urgency of action on climate change continues to be heard, despite the weight of other concerns and other news. We recently laid out the case for climate action at local, national, regional and international level, and a global deal, in our Paris 2015 publication.

We are not in the game of chasing headlines. We know the science has spoken and we want informed, sensible debate on what we do about tackling climate change. We are working hard, responsibly and successfully to ensure that messages on climate change and our policies to reduce our emissions are accessible to the public, and to explain how these will affect other priorities, such as bills, health and, indeed, keeping the lights on. To do this we are looking wider than traditional media. Indeed, ahead of the next United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference of parties at the end of the year, I will be part of a wider Tweetathon in late November, communicating to all peoples and civic society, to debate these important issues.

We can avoid dangerous climate change through innovation and global will. Reducing emissions is part of securing economic growth. This is already happening. As a result of the commitment seen so far, new technologies are becoming available. For example, in only six years the cost of solar photovoltaic systems fell by two thirds. Costs continue to fall and deployment continues to accelerate. This month, the world’s first carbon-capture power station started operation. The UK is among the leaders in developing CCS.

My Department was instrumental in developing and launching a recent report on the new climate economy. The cast list was impressive. The report was overseen by a group of ex-Heads of Government, Finance Ministers and key chief executive officers from around the world. The IMF, the World Bank and the OECD were all involved. The report proves that economic growth and action to reduce emissions can go hand in hand.

The recent summit in New York showed that there is international will to tackle this global problem together. Our Prime Minister joined more than 100 world leaders and hundreds of leaders from business, finance and civil society. That global will at all levels of society will help to build momentum and find solutions.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) suggested that the Government’s words did not match our actions, and I would take issue with that. My first example is the fact that the Prime Minister has, as she said, gone to the EU today to try to secure a deal for the whole of Europe. The UK has led, and it is now essential that we get the EU to come with us.

The Prime Minister was right to describe us as the greenest Government ever. We continue to be proud of saying that, and we are delivering not only at the international level, but locally through, for example, solar PV. Half a million households are now proud to have solar PV on their houses, and we hope that will continue. We also hope that solar PV, which has been so successful recently, will become subsidy-free by 2020.

I found myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) said, because she shares my concern about this being such a serious issue. She reminded us of the party consensus that exists. I feel we are the last generation to be able to change something, and the first to be absolutely able to act and to have the tools to do so.

The hon. Lady shares with me a commitment to ensuring that we take action, and she raised interesting questions about public awareness. The public’s activity in support of action is incredibly important. When I was in New York with the Prime Minister and other Environment and Energy Ministers for the recent summit, there was a climate change march of more than 400,000 people—in fact, marches took place in 40 cities throughout the world. When I had the opportunity, I told the people who were marching, “Please keeping doing this. Keep raising your voices. Keep reminding politicians how much you care about this and how much you will hold us to account, so that we continue to make the right decisions for your country and the world.”

The hon. Lady made an interesting point about education. I am aware that climate change is part of a GCSE geography syllabus, but I do not know whether it goes further than that, and I would like to come back to her on that.

To finish, many of those who purport to have issues with climate science do so because they do not like the implication of the solutions. Some may be worried that the proposed measures to tackle climate change are intrusive and at odds with the free market. However, the science is clear: human emissions are driving global temperatures upwards, and continued emissions will lead to further warming and many other changes to our planet. We need to take action to avoid unacceptable risks.

Let us talk about real solutions and options and about acceptable levels of risk, rather than wish the problem away. I am optimistic we can avoid dangerous climate change. It will take political will and technological change, and that is already happening. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister once again emphasised that climate change is one of the most serious threats facing our world and underlined UK leadership. We will continue to communicate what we are doing to tackle climate change and how we are playing a part in improving the UK’s energy efficiency, as well as our far-reaching plans to decarbonise our energy supply and to push for an ambitious global deal in Paris.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further with members of both Committees, and I thank them for bringing this report to our attention.

15:13

[Andrew Miller]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell—I do not think I have done so before.

This has been a fascinating debate. It has been couched in language that makes people feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and I are miles apart; indeed, the Minister implied that my hon. Friend was a sceptic. However, all scientists should be sceptical about all the evidence in front of them. In that respect, the Minister, in her use of language, made one of the mistakes I plead with people to avoid: she talked about a scientific fact, but there are very few scientific facts, although there are strongly held views based on the evidence. We should be careful with language, because it is part of the problem in trying to get messages across. I have banned my Committee staff from using the words “anecdotal evidence”, because something is either an anecdote or it is evidence—it cannot really be both. We need to be very precise in using language in this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton made a number of points on which I have come to different conclusions based on the evidence. In several inquiries, he has crawled over the whole saga of East Anglia, and I publicly made some criticisms of the university management’s handling of the issue. Where I take issue with my hon. Friend is that I do not doubt the integrity of the scientists involved—I do not think they fixed the evidence, although the methodology involved in putting things into the public domain was weak in the extreme, and there are lessons in that. All information needs to be cross-referenced with the best peer-reviewed work, and I shall touch on that in my comments on the Minister’s speech.

I also disagree with some of my hon. Friend’s other comments. He did not respond to my observation that palaeontology looks backwards in the same way he asserted climate scientists should not look backwards when using models. In that respect, I plead a slight bias as my daughter has a PhD in fluid dynamics and is a specialist in mathematical modelling—I can get only to page 10 of the PhD. However, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the definitions we faced were fraught with difficulty, not least the one from the Department, which was inadequate.

My hon. Friend may be regarded as a sceptic, but I do not see that as a criticism. However, I fundamentally disagree with his criticism of the IPCC, and there is no evidence to justify his belief that it should be wound up.

From time to time, my hon. Friend does tease Ministers more than somewhat, and that is on the public record. The Committee had the new Minister for Universities, Science and Cities before it this week, and my hon. Friend asked him to explain the second law of thermodynamics, which I thought was a tad on the cruel side. [Interruption.] The Minister did not get that question.

I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and the work being done by her Committee, because there are significant cross-cutting issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) talked about the need for joining up, and that is certainly true of my Committee’s work and that being done by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. However, we also heard about it when we did a report on horizon-scanning, when even one of the top civil servants—Jon Day from the Cabinet Office—said that there is a problem with the Government’s silo mentality in dealing with some of the long-term horizon-scanning problems, and nothing is bigger in that respect than climate change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central was absolutely right about debates on this issue being conducted in the language of science, and we have to try to address that.

Let me turn now to the Minister’s comments. I very much welcome her to her role, and I thank her for her response. I also thank her for publishing the new part of the Department’s website today—we will call it the Select Committee page. Having looked at it briefly—the Minister reminded us of it only a few moments ago—I would recommend that she go back to the Department and lay down some challenges to the authors of that section. There are lots of scientific assertions in the first part of the narrative, most of which I am 100% in agreement with, but they could easily be improved by including hotlinks to the source material, so that anyone who challenged those assertions could see the basis on which the Government had drawn their conclusions. Having given advice to Governments for some years on the design of electronic information and how to communicate such things, I strongly urge that that is what should be done. It is so easy to put on a hotlink back to the source material when quoting 1° C or some such figure. The House should do that too, much more often. The expert group is also very welcome. It should perhaps be challenged with the peer review of some of the information presented by the Government.

The Select Committee has made a commitment, in addition to decisions that have been made by the Liaison Committee, to produce a legacy report towards the end of the Parliament, setting out what we see as the big challenges for our successor Committee and asking questions about what the Government have done in response to reports. Has action been effective? What recommendations have been missed? What should be prioritised in the next Parliament? The Committee will, to use the current vernacular, nudge the Minister’s Department to prepare for that. I hope that she will be able to give answers about the missing information that I mentioned before.

It is critical that we should use consistent, coherent arguments and accessible language. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned the attribution of tsunamis to climate change, which is bonkers. We must get away from that, and from editorial comment such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned from The Times, and be pro-active about encouraging newspaper editors and journalists to improve their use of language about the subject. This is a hugely important area; if we do not carry the public with us, and should the scientific consensus prove correct, as I believe it will, we will find ourselves in deep difficulties—not just as a nation, and not just in coastal areas, but with respect to our responsibilities globally.

I know, Mr Rosindell, that you have an interest in things military. I had the privilege of taking part in the Royal College of Defence Studies senior staff course a few years ago. As to predicting future causes of war, it was interesting that the dominant input from some of the country’s greatest experts covered, as well as some fairly obvious factors such as religion, things such as water—its shortage or excess.

The relevant changes affecting countries all over the planet are attributable substantially to changes in the climate of the planet we live on. If we do not do positive things, and encourage the kind of work that has been done through the IPCC and the kind of carbon reduction targets that have been adopted by countries as diverse as the Netherlands and Mexico, we shall be doing future generations a massive disservice. It is our responsibility. Let us communicate it in clear language.

Question put and agreed to.

15:23

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Written Statements

Thursday 23 October 2014

Serious Fraud Office (Contingencies Fund)

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Written Statements

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)]

I would like to inform the House that a cash advance from the Contingencies Fund has been sought for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

In line with the current arrangement for SFO funding agreed with HM Treasury, the SFO will be submitting a reserve claim as part of the supplementary estimate process for 2014-15.

The advance is required to meet an urgent cash requirement on existing services pending parliamentary approval of the 2014-15 supplementary estimate. The supplementary estimate will seek an increase in both the resource departmental expenditure limit and the net cash requirement in order to cover the cost of significant investigations and the settlement of material liabilities.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £26,500,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Serious Fraud Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £26,500,000 will be met by a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund. Should further resources be required, the Serious Fraud Office will seek authority through the Treasury in the normal way.

The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.

Sporting Legacy

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

In July, the Government and the Mayor of London published “Inspired by 2012”. This second anniversary report detailed the activities which took place in the second year since the 2012 games.

As the Minister responsible for sport and equalities, I am committed to delivering a lasting sports legacy from London 2012 for all. I would like to update the House on progress on the Government’s sport legacy plan since July.

The UK has shown that it remains one of the best places in the world to stage major sporting events with incredible and inspiring events such as the Invictus games. Each major sporting event hosted in this country helps to build on the legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games and inspires new people to get involved with sport.

In February of this year the Government and Mayor of London launched our “Moving More, Living More” initiative to promote physical activity as part of the legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. As part of that initiative we see today:

the launch of Public Health England’s physical activity implementation framework, “Everybody Active, Every Day”, which will provide local authorities and other organisations with guidance, evidence and supportive materials to help them when commissioning local physical activity interventions. The framework has been developed following extensive consultation with members of the public and stakeholders.

the announcement by Sport England of a new £5 million fund, “Get Healthy, Get Active”, which will allow local communities to apply for funding to help to tackle inactivity and which will be aligned to local strategies.

There will also be a number of other Government announcements relating to physical activity over the coming months, including the launch of a cycling and walking delivery plan, being led by the Department for Transport.

For the last year, the DCMS Women and Sport Advisory Board has been meeting to discuss further ways to address the issues surrounding women and sport, from participation to commercial sponsorship and women on sports boards. I am convening the Government’s first conference dedicated specifically to the issues surrounding women and sport on the 30 October. This invites public engagement to further this important agenda and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to women in sport.

The “I Will If You Will” 12-month pilot programme—launched in Bury in September 2013—tested what helps to encourage more women and girls to be more active, more often. With £2.3 million of national lottery funding from Sport England, and delivered by Bury council, the innovative programme has the support of the local sports providers, community groups, businesses and volunteer champions. It has helped engage more than 6,500 women and girls across the borough, delivered nearly 25,000 activity sessions and allocated approximately £35,000 of grant money for local groups. The second phase of the programme will start in early 2015 and run for two years. Exact plans and the learnings from the pilot will be revealed later in the year.

Elite sport

At the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games, England finished top of the medal table and Scotland’s fourth place was its highest ever finish. In fact, England, Scotland and Wales won more medals than ever before at a Commonwealth games.

The England women’s rugby team won the 2014 rugby world cup in Paris on 17 August. I can report that at a grass-roots level, nearly 14,000 women and girls are currently registered as playing rugby each week and the Rugby Football Union is targeting growth of a further 10,000 participants by 2017.

UK Sport has doubled investment in British Winter Olympic and Paralympic sports preparing for the next games in PyeongChang, South Korea, in 2018. Following the games in Sochi, winter sports were able to make a compelling case to UK Sport for increased investment in the next cycle. UK Sport will invest up to £31 million in eight winter Olympic and Paralympic sports, which have demonstrated credible medal potential for PyeongChang 2018 or in 2022. This will contribute towards a collective ambition for Great Britain to have yet another record-breaking winter games in four years’ time. This is more than double the investment in the Sochi cycle—the four years leading up to the Sochi games—of just over £14 million.

As part of the continued Government funding for elite sport to 2016, all funded athletes have been asked to give up to five days a year to inspire children and young people to get involved in sport. UK Sport’s most recent survey of this activity, completed in April 2014, revealed that athletes had given more than 8,200 days to community and school sport since London 2012.

World-class facilities

The south of Queen Elizabeth Olympic park reopened in April 2014. Since the north of the park began to open in July 2013, more than 3 million people have visited for a wide variety of community, cultural and sporting events or simply to enjoy the new parkland.

The park’s world-class sporting venues continue to draw huge crowds. The London Aquatics Centre attracted more than 500,000 visitors since it opened in March 2014, the Copper Box arena drew in 300,000 visitors in its first year while Lee Valley VeloPark has had more than 300,000 visitors since it opened in March 2014. The Lee Valley Hockey and Tennis Centre also opened its doors to the public in June 2014.

The park also plays host to a range of major sporting events. On 8 June 2014 thousands of people came to the park to enjoy the Queen’s baton relay on its journey to Glasgow for the Commonwealth games. A festival of sport, part of the park’s three-year Active People, Active Park programme, was staged as part of the relay to encourage local people of all ages and abilities to get active with more than 30 different sports on offer. The park formed part of the route for this year’s Tour de France while the Prudential Ride London event attracted more than 20,000 amateur and professional cyclists who began their Prudential Ride London event from the heart of the park in early August. Later in the month 30,000 people attended a wide variety of sporting activities to mark National Paralympic day and in September, 65,000 spectators watched 400 injured, sick or wounded servicemen and women from 13 countries compete in the inaugural Invictus games.

Major sports events

DCMS, with UK Sport and Sport England, are planning to capitalise on the UK hosting major events to increase sport participation. Later this year DCMS and UK Sport will publish an updated major events strategy which will demonstrate a collaborative partnership which aims to identify, attract and deliver up to 100 major international sporting events by 2023, including World and European championships such as the world artistic gymnastics (2015), world athletics championships (2017) and UEFA European championship finals package (2020).

UK Sport’s £41 million gold event series funded through the national lottery will support the bidding and delivery of a majority of these events. In 2013, Sport England launched a £2 million engagement fund to support the gold event series by enabling participation programmes to be wrapped around major events hosted in England.

Interest in volunteering for major events remains high. UK Sport is encouraging an emphasis on good training and orientation to create a successful event and to create a positive volunteering experience. A report on the rugby league world cup 2013 confirmed that over 700 volunteers were part of the event, and 300 of these were new to volunteering. Outcomes of the report were good and demonstrated a positive experience for volunteers. The Yorkshire Tour de France Grand Depart 2014 utilised over 10,000 volunteers selected to become “Tour Makers”. Interest in volunteering for the rugby world cup was high. England 2015 received over 20,000 applications for 6,000 volunteer roles across the UK. Seventy-five per cent of applications for “The Pack” were from the rugby community in line with the tournament vision. Selection events, or “Try Outs”, began in June and will be held in every host city until December 2014.

Community

Places people play

Sport England’s investment in grass-roots sports facilities now stands at £91 million, with over 1,670 clubs already having benefited from the “Inspired Facilities” programme.

Youth sport strategy

Sportivate and satellite clubs are two of Sport England’s leading community sport programmes that have already got more than half a million young people playing sport every week. Sportivate introduces 11-25 year olds to sport through a six-week coaching course. Satellite clubs bring community sports clubs into schools and colleges and help young people continue their sporting habit after they leave school.

A total of 495,132 14 to 25-year-olds have completed the Sportivate coaching course, with over 300,000 continuing to participate. There are now 3,615 satellite clubs operational and 480 of these are girls only. This is an increase of 1,615 satellite clubs since July 2014, of these 280 girls-only clubs started during this period. These continue to bring sport to young people in very local venues and may attract young people who are not typically very sporty.

In September, Sport England’s university sport activation fund awarded £11.3 million of national lottery funding to support the universities to get nearly 195,000 new students playing sport by offering them the chance to take up new sport or to continue playing a sport they used to play at school or college.

Volunteering

Summer 2014 saw Join In co-ordinate a relay of volunteering across the UK, sending sports stars back to where their careers began to highlight the importance of volunteers to the success of local sport. Over 1,000 people attended the 10 stops across the country, supported by 100-plus volunteers.

Alongside this was Join In’s volunteer co-ordination at Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games and Invictus games. This, combined with the recent Join In partnership with ITV’s local heroes campaign, has encouraged volunteering and club engagement through the Join In website.

Join In’s “Value of Volunteering in Sport” research was launched on 16 October at Admiralty House.

School games

The School games is Government’s framework for competitive school sport, which aims to give every schoolchild, no matter their ability or disability, the chance to participate in high-quality competitive sport.

The School games offer intra-school, inter-school, county festivals and national finals competition for school children. The School games national finals 2014 were held in Manchester on 4-7 September. A total of 1,600 athletes competed in 12 sports in venues across the city. With more than 10,000 spectators and more than 400 volunteers, the event provided an opportunity to highlight the importance of youth sport. The games have been a launch pad for many elite athletes—for example, 150 of the competitors at the recent Commonwealth games in Glasgow had taken part in the School games previously.

PE and school sport

The primary spaces facilities fund will enable 601 schools to improve their outdoor facilities and create spaces that will inspire and encourage pupils to take part in play.

Schools were awarded grants up to £30,000. All 601 schools have their projects planned this year; they are being installed in five waves throughout the academic year. The first 100 projects began this summer with a large number of schools and children already enjoying their newly enhanced outdoor facility.

OFSTED published a primary school sport premium survey report on 15 October looking at the first year of delivery of primary PE and sport fund. The results were positive showing lots of good practice at schools across the country.

Disability sport legacy

Following the success of the London 2012 Paralympic games, we want to inspire more people with disabilities to play sport regularly and the Invictus games were certainly inspirational. There is good evidence to show a positive relationship between attending/watching major events encourages participation, and this same inspirational impact is also felt by TV viewers. The Invictus games continues the success of the Paralympics in bringing disability sport to a mass audience—and the real benefits to the public’s perception of disabled people.

International development

The international inspiration (II) programme ended in June 2014. Active in 20 countries, II exceeded its vision of reaching 12 million young people with more than 15.6 million reached. A final evaluation report of II was published in July 2014 by Ecrorys and examined the programme’s impact with the II. The charity is working on plans to sustain the programme beyond its completion.

I will continue to provide quarterly updates to the House on progress with delivery of this plan.

Care Act 2014 (Part 1)

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

Today I am publishing the statutory guidance to support implementation of part 1 of the Care Act 2014 in 2015/16. Also today the Government’s “Response to the consultation on draft regulations and guidance for implementation of part 1 of the Care Act 2014 (Cm 8955)” has been laid before Parliament. Published alongside this document are proposed final versions of the regulations which will underpin the new legal framework, in order to provide this information to local authorities as soon as possible to support their preparations for implementation in April 2015.

Regulations subject to the negative procedure will be laid before Parliament shortly, and those subject to the affirmative procedure will be subject to the approval of Parliament in due course.

The Care Act will make a difference to some of the most vulnerable people in society for many years to come. It provides for the most substantial reform of the care and support system in England for over 65 years, enshrining individual rights and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of local authorities and other partners. The guidance and regulations associated with the Act set out how the Act will work in practice when the first phase of the reforms comes into effect next year.

Consultation on draft regulations and guidance over summer 2014 drew over 4,000 responses. We are very grateful to all who took time to contribute to this consultation process. The consultation response document summarises the many ways in which those responses have helped to shape the final guidance and regulations.

This consultation and final package published today relates to those parts of the care and support reforms which come into effect from 2015/16. A second consultation will be held later this year in relation to the reforms which are due to be implemented from April 2016, including the reforms to the funding system for care and support and the cap on care costs.

Response to the consultation on draft regulations and guidance for implementation of part 1 of the Care Act 2014 is available in the Library.

The statutory guidance and proposed regulations have been placed in the Library of the House.

Today’s publications can also be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/updating-our-care-and-support-system-draft-regulations-and-guidance

Family and Civil Cases (Support)

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Written Statements

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

The Government are committed to making sure that when people separate that they do it in the best possible way. Too many people end up fighting expensive and confrontational court battles when they could be helped to resolve their problems outside of the courts. However when people do end up in court it is imperative that they have the right advice and information.

After the major changes to the family court in April this year and the recent announcement in July of a free mediation session for separating couples, I am today announcing further initiatives to help people in the family and civil justice system. A new package of support has been developed aimed at keeping disputes away from court and providing better support for those who do end up in court.

The new support will include:

Improving online information so that it is accurate, engaging and easy to find.

A new strategy, funded by the Ministry of Justice, and agreed with the legal and advice sectors which will help to increase legal and practical support for litigants in person in the civil and family courts.

A new “Supporting separating parents in dispute helpline” pilot run by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) to test a more joined-up and tailored out-of-court service.

This package of support will help provide separating couples and court users with the information, advice and guidance they need to help settle disputes in the most appropriate and proportionate way.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 16 October 2014 in Luxembourg. I represented the United Kingdom.

The Council agreed a general approach on a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European platform to enhance co-operation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work. Through negotiation we have achieved textual changes which clarify that participation in activities arising from the platform’s discussions will be voluntary. The UK abstained on this vote due to parliamentary scrutiny reserve.

There was a policy debate on the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy, including the evaluation of the European semester. There was general agreement between member states on the future direction of the Europe 2020 strategy; the mid-term review; and the evaluation of the European semester. The UK expressed continued support for Europe 2020 and a renewed emphasis on economic and employment growth. The UK also highlighted the need to avoid new tools of EU governance. As part of this discussion, the Council endorsed the joint opinion presented by the Employment Committee (EMCO) and Social Protection Committee (SPC). The Council also endorsed the SPC report on social policy reforms for a fair and competitive Europe.

Under any other business, the Commission delivered a presentation on a shortfall in the European social fund budget. The UK intervened to set out that while the backlog of unpaid commitments was an issue that needed to be addressed, the Commission should be managing such spending pressures. The Italian presidency provided information to the Council on the September 2014 G20 Labour and Employment Ministers’ meeting. It also provided an update on the proposed tripartite social summit and on other ongoing issues. Finally, the Council paid tribute to the outgoing Employment Commissioner Laszlo Andor, thanking him for his commitment to social reforms.

Universal Credit Support

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Written Statements

The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey): During the passage of the Pensions Act 2014 through the House of Lords earlier this year, concerns were raised on the ability of universal credit claimants to undertake work-related requirements when they are facing situations where they have a child in considerable distress. We wanted to ensure that we appropriately support parents in these circumstances as we recognise the importance of parental responsibilities in such acute situations. My noble Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud, therefore committed to an internal departmental review to consider this issue. That review has now ended and I am pleased to announce the findings.

Evidence was provided by a range of external stakeholder organisations, DWP front-line staff and officials from other Government Departments. We have also been supported in our considerations of the review findings by two external expert advisers, Dr Jane Callaghan from the British Psychological Society and Karina Dancza from the College of Occupational Therapists. I am very grateful to all those who contributed to the review, and especially to Jane and Karina for their expertise. The review concluded that there are particular circumstances where a child is likely to be in considerable distress and where it would be reasonable to allow the primary carer of the child to have their work related requirements suspended. This would be where there is significant disruption to the claimant’s normal child-care responsibilities and a need to provide additional care and support for their child. As a result, we intend to introduce an amendment to existing regulations that will allow the following improvements.

A month suspension of work-related requirements where there is a need to provide additional care and support to a child following the death of a parent, sibling, previous responsible carer of a child or a person living in the same household as the child who does not pay commercial rent;

the child experiencing or witnessing violence or abuse which would include domestic violence and abuse.

The responsible carer of the child would be able to access this month suspension once every six months for a total period of up to two years following the incidence of any of the above situations.

An extension of the existing suspension of work-related requirements from 13 weeks to 26 weeks for victims fleeing domestic violence and abuse where the claimant is the primary carer of a child.

We do not intend to seek evidence of the child’s distress, but rather on how the situation has impacted the day-to-day functioning of the parent/family. For example, the additional demands placed on the parent by having to attend numerous appointments with statutory agencies and how in turn this affects the claimant’s ability to undertake work search and their availability for work.

We have substantial evidence that points to work having a strong positive impact on the well-being of an individual and their family. The amendment to put in place a month suspended conditionality recognises the need to provide a temporary suspension of work related requirements to enable the parent to support their child and deal with the impact of their distress.

We intend to lay the amendments to regulations before Parliament on 4 November 2014.

Grand Committee

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

Thursday, 23 October 2014.

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works) Regulations 2014

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

Motions to Consider

14:00

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to these regulations and the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Licensing of Orphan Works) Regulations 2014 together. They introduce two ways in which orphan works can be copied lawfully and therefore made much more accessible to many more people. One is a UK-only licensing scheme, the other implements the EU directive on certain permitted uses of orphan works—the orphan works directive, as it is called.

There are literally millions of culturally valuable objects held in museums, libraries and archives that the public cannot get to see. Orphan works are creative works such as photographs, diaries, oral history recordings or documentary films that are in copyright but for which one or more copyright owner cannot be located. As copyright for published works generally lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years, orphan works, which cannot be reproduced without permission, can remain unseen for a long time. At present, copyright for unpublished works can extend back to the Norman Conquest.

Being able to copy such works is important because otherwise the public have to travel to the archive where the work is held. A museum cannot make a copy to exhibit or to display on its website without the risk of legal action if the right holder reappears. Yet the taxpayer has to cover the cost of preserving these works.

The orphan works directive, which must be implemented by 29 October this year, will make it possible for cultural and heritage organisations to copy certain types of orphan works to display on their websites. It will give us access to Europe’s hidden cultural treasures from anywhere in Europe—for example, the German National Library. It does not allow commercial use, nor does it apply to photos or other standalone images at present.

The UK licensing scheme, provided for in the first set of regulations, will allow anyone to apply for a licence to use any type of orphan work, in any medium, for commercial or non-commercial use within the United Kingdom—for example, orphan documents and images in new books and orphan film clips in documentaries. Both these schemes have important safeguards built into them to make sure that they are fair to the owners of the orphan works if they are eventually found. They also allow for the use of so-called partial orphans, where only some right holders can be identified, with these regulations applying to those who cannot be found and permission gained from those that are known in the usual way.

To give a sense of how these measures will work in practice, I will look at an example from the National Records of Scotland collection of more than 150,000 maps and plans. The archive has an ink and colourwash plan of the village and harbour of Sandend dated 1893, part of a private collection from the Earls of Seafield. The surveyor, Hugh C Lowe, is not listed in the Dictionary of Scottish Architects and does not appear in death records. Without knowing when he died, the archive could not be sure that the work is out of copyright. If Mr Lowe died after 1943, the works could still be in copyright. Indeed, a large number of plans relating to Victorian engineering projects, such as the Forth bridge, cannot be copied.

As these orphan works are standalone images—not embedded in another work such as a book—the archive could not use the copyright exception provided by the orphan works directive. However, it could apply to the UK’s new licensing scheme. The archive would apply to the IPO for a licence online. Its application would show what it had done to find the right holders—what is known as a “diligent search”. This is an issue which has been much debated in this House. Merely stating that the work was found on the internet, without reasonable efforts to find right holders, would not be sufficient. The IPO will check that diligent searches are adequate.

To return to my example, if the museum wanted to adapt the Sandend plan, the IPO would consider whether this adaptation might be thought derogatory to the creator’s reputation. It is unlikely in this example, but if it were thought to be derogatory, the IPO would refuse a licence. Details of the work and a watermarked copy of the image—if it is a still image such as the Sandend plan—will be shown on the public register. This will enable right holders to check whether any of their works are being considered as orphans. Many orphan works are unpublished works created by non-professionals, and right holders are often unaware of having the copyright. That is why potential licensees need to look for the copyright owner, not the other way round.

Your Lordships have also debated fees in the past. In my example, the museum must pay a fee when it submits the application. This covers the cost of running the scheme. If its application is successful, it will have to pay a licence fee, which is passed on to the right holder should they reappear. The principles of transparency are important, and applicants will be able to see the cost of the licence fee before proceeding with the application. The licence fee will reflect the price of a similar non-orphan work being used in a similar way. For genuinely non-commercial use, such as display on a museum website, this will be minimal. Once the licence fee is paid, a licence for the specific use or uses requested will be issued in the name of the applicant. The entry on the orphan works register will be updated to reflect this. When the work is used, the IPO must be referenced as well as the creator, if their name is known.

Licences of varying lengths will be available as for equivalent non-orphan works. However, the longest term will be seven years. A reappearing right holder can claim the licence fee that has been held in trust for him or her by the IPO and no further orphan works licences will be issued for the work in question. If a right holder does not reappear, the licence may be renewed. Right holders can claim their fees up to eight years after a licence has been issued. After eight years, unclaimed fees will be used to offset the costs of setting up and running the orphan works scheme. Any surplus must be used for social, cultural or educational activity. Prospective licensees can appeal to the Copyright Tribunal about the licence conditions, the fee charged or a refusal to grant a licence. If the right holder feels that the IPO has acted improperly, he or she can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Some potential users of both the directive and the licensing scheme would have liked to stretch further to other parts of Europe and indeed beyond—a sentiment that I share. Obviously, the EU can make laws only for its member states and the UK Government can offer licences for use only within the UK. Users are responsible for checking the legal position in any other jurisdiction if they wish to publish beyond these territories. I know that this is frustrating for cultural and commercial organisations, but the new measures are better than the current position, where no such lawful use is possible at all. Moreover, other countries are developing mechanisms to allow the use of orphan works, so licences or exceptions may be available elsewhere. The IPO is also exploring the possibility of reciprocal agreements with other jurisdictions to make this process easier, particularly among English-speaking countries. Constructive discussions are ongoing with Canada and with the United States.

Some noble Lords have expressed concern that the UK scheme ought not to crowd out non-orphan works. For example, there was a concern that people would use orphan works instead of non-orphan ones or commission new works because they thought that they would be free or cheaper than non-orphan works. This will not be the case because most users of the scheme will be looking to reproduce works of often unique historical interest for which there is no substitute.

The key point is that to license an orphan work you will need to conduct a diligent search, pay an application fee to the IPO—whether you are granted a licence or not—and pay a licence fee at market rate if you are successful. These safeguards mean that it will be easier to use non-orphan works instead of the orphan items. There is no application fee there and the price may be negotiable because there is a right holder to negotiate with.

I should perhaps comment on photographs. The Government are aware that the details of the right holder and other metadata can all too easily be stripped from a photograph on the internet, whether with intent to circumvent copyright or not.

The existence of legal means of reproducing orphan works does not itself cause this problem. It happens now and may be a criminal offence if done deliberately by a business. There are now swifter and affordable legal remedies in place to deal with such infringements, including the small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, previously the Patents County Court. For example, in the case of Sheldon v Daybrook last year the infringer agreed to pay £20,000 to the photographer for the continued and repeated unauthorised use of an exclusive photograph. The Government also continue to support the work of the Copyright Licensing Steering Group and the Copyright Hub, which are working on a voluntary code of practice for dealing with metadata.

Orphan works licensing could make things better for photographers, not worse. The requirement for and checking of diligent searches; the need to pay a licence fee; the ability to search the orphan works register; and the requirement to credit orphan works with the name of the creator—where known—and details of the IPO will make some unlawful use more obvious.

On pricing, the IPO has analysed a wide range of prices for non-orphan works being used in a wide range of ways. From these, it has calculated average prices which it will charge and has developed a pricing matrix that covers more than 5,000 different combinations of type of work and type of use. To give a couple of examples: the price of putting the Sandend plan on to the National Records of Scotland website would be 10p, as that is a non-commercial use. The price for publishing a 15-line orphan poem in an anthology with a print run of up to 500 would be £77.15, excluding value added tax. The IPO’s methodology was devised by a financial analyst and checked with the Competition and Markets Authority. These market-based prices ensure that orphan works do not distort the market for non-orphans, which I know has been a concern.

Another concern that has been raised by some is privacy. The introduction of the two orphan works measures should not impact on the privacy of living individuals. The directive allows unpublished works to be displayed on a cultural heritage organisation’s website only if they hold the work in their collection and if there is no reason to believe that the right holder would object. That means that the website can show only those works which are available to see if one visits the institution in person.

To conclude, the two measures before noble Lords are complementary, enabling different uses of culturally valuable orphan works: from striking photos in the RAF Museum, to films of life in India in the Northamptonshire Record Office, to the British Library’s unique sound recordings of oral history, which I have been involved with, to the scientifically valuable reports at institutions such as the Medical Research Council.

The measures respect copyright, protect right holders from likely and significant risks, and are trailblazing in offering the first online application system. They are good for right holders, cultural organisations and businesses, and good for citizens and consumers, who will be able to access more, and much more easily. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the order which would implement the European Union directive, transposing it into our domestic law. It is something that libraries across the European Union have worked towards for at least eight years, and I anticipate that libraries in this country will certainly wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to make new uses of orphan works that the EU directive allows. An example would be the British Library’s programme to digitise orphan works from the First World War period.

I also welcome, in principle, the domestic policy initiative to introduce a wider licensing scheme for orphan works. I very much welcome the noble Baroness’s recognition of the potential value of enabling much wider access to orphan works. However, there are questions as to whether the scheme as it has been devised will be used. I put it to the Committee that it is excessively bureaucratic and expensive. The regulations are not clear about precisely how bureaucratic and expensive, but they point ominously in that direction. As things are at this stage, there is doubt as to whether the British Library and other cultural and research institutions in this country will use the domestic scheme on a significant scale. Why should there be these doubts?

14:14

Regulation 4(2) states:

“A diligent search must comprise a reasonable search of the relevant sources to identify and locate the right holders of the relevant work”.

There is a question as to whether the requirements will in practice be “reasonable”. A somewhat alarming form of words is to be found a little further on in the same regulation. Paragraph (4) states:

“The authorising body may issue guidance on what sources may additionally be relevant in the case of different relevant works”.

We can see the genesis here of a very complex system.

As I understand it, the regulations will require item-by-item diligent search, regardless of the type or class of orphan work. This will be labour-intensive and laborious. The whole process will then have to be repeated after seven years. The impact assessment assesses that the cost of diligent search could be of the order of £176,000 a year, which is in the context of very low expectations of take-up.

Licensing is to be for specific purposes only, as I think I understand, but I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify what the impact assessment states on page 7—I am probably misunderstanding it. We are told at one point that,

“it should be noted that the domestic scheme provides for the licensing of individual orphan works for specific purposes, rather than permitting any mass licensing of works”,

but then the impact assessment tells us that the National Museum Directors’ Council, which represents major national and regional museums, has called for the use of a blanket/umbrella licence for non-commercial uses because that is the only way in which the scheme would be affordable. The impact assessment goes on to state:

“In light of the consultation responses, the IPO will develop a blanket licence to ensure that the scheme is affordable for non-commercial use of orphan works”.

I am not quite clear what is to be allowed and what is not, so it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that.

Under the domestic scheme, as opposed to the European scheme, there are also to be fees for processing applications, which the impact assessment predicts could be £59,700 a year. Licensing fees will have to be paid upfront and the money that comes from them will be put into an escrow account. We are told that the licensing fees—and the Minister just repeated it—will be minimal for non-commercial uses of orphan works. She went on, I think, to suggest a range of between of 10p and £77 in her illustrative examples. The impact assessment also tells us that the conservative estimate of the number of orphan works in collections in this country is of the order of 91 million. If you multiply a minimal fee by millions, you arrive at a sum which could be very substantial. Moreover, if those licensing fees do not prove to be necessary to pay royalties to rights holders who turn up, they will not be returned to the institutions that have paid them at the end of eight years. This strikes me as being a kind of tax that the business department is levying on our cultural institutions. It is an odd thing to be doing. I just wonder whether in Whitehall the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. How can it be that the business department imposes a tax of this kind on organisations that are publicly funded through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? Indeed, in the case of universities, it is taxing the very institutions that it itself funds. I am puzzled by this merry-go-round and not very happy about it.

Under the European scheme, there will be no upfront payments. The scheme produced under the EU directive is less bureaucratic than the scheme produced by our own Government. For example, the directive leaves the responsibility for defining and satisfying the requirements for diligent search with the organisations that are using the works; it trusts their good faith. The European Union scheme is more sensible and less burdensome than our own Government’s scheme.

I am also less than convinced by the estimate in the impact assessment that the running costs of the scheme to be operated by the Intellectual Property Office will be in the order of only £33,000 a year. As the authorising body, the IPO will have to set and collect administrative fees; it will have to process applications; it will have to verify that a diligent search has indeed taken place; it will have to set the licence fees; it will have to grant licences, with or without conditions; it will have to operate a searchable register of orphan works; it will have to verify that rights holders are indeed genuine and arrange to make payments to them; it will have to administer the escrow account containing the unclaimed licence fees; it may have to make its case to the tribunals that the Minister mentioned; and it will have to produce an annual report. Are we really to believe, as the impact assessment tells us, that all this work will be carried out by one full-time executive at EO(B2) level and that it will cost only £33,000? I find that implausible. If it could conceivably be correct, it must be because the department expects very little business of this kind to come the way of the IPO.

Indeed, the impact assessment is pessimistic. It anticipates that there will be only 1,500 to 3,000 applications each year and it obligingly does the sum for us and tells us that that represents 0.0017% to 0.0033% of the 91 million orphan works. Of course it is right to protect creators’ rights and artists’ rights but it must also be right—this is the balance we have to seek in policy—to encourage and facilitate cultural organisations to digitise the orphan works in their collections and thus to democratise access to them.

We seem here to be presented with gratuitous bureaucracy, which is very ironic in view of the Minister’s zealous commitment against excess bureaucracy. I wonder why her department and the IPO have not in the domestic scheme replicated the model provided by the directive, or indeed why they have not adopted a different kind of business model which would make it possible for cultural institutions to take out insurance against future claims by rights holders or to put aside contingency funds, and to be able to use the orphan works legally provided that they took those measures to ensure that they would be able to pay rights holders. In addition, why is there to be the same fees regime for non-commercial and commercial use? The Minister just told us that orphan works will not be in competition with non-orphan works. Why should there not be a discount or indeed an exemption from fees for the cultural institutions? Why not just allow, as the directive would, cultural institutions to demonstrate that they have applied a diligent approach to the collection containing orphan works that is in their hands? If any of those approaches had been adopted, the Government really would be facilitating mass digitisation.

We were told during the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill that this scheme, once introduced, would be reviewed after a one-year period. That is a very good thing. We look forward to the review, which may be carried out by the noble Baroness’s successor but will none the less be valid and valuable. As it is, I worry that we risk forgoing the cultural and economic benefits of enlarging access to orphan works that we might have had.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the implementation of the EU directive, but I want to talk exclusively to the domestic version of the orphan works regulations, which originated in Section 77 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. I am sure we all recall with nostalgia the passage of that Bill through this House. Perhaps, in the light of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, should have backed my amendment to the European directive implementation in the Bill.

The Minister’s examples of the types of work that could be licensed and authorised have been extremely interesting, but—strangely enough—like the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I wonder whether there will be a great take-up of these provisions. It seems that the volume of licences issued through the rather similar Canadian scheme is extremely low. I am told that only 42 licenses have been granted under Hungary’s orphan works scheme since it started in 2009. The revised impact assessment goes into great detail and downgrades the original estimates of use. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I wonder whether the contribution of these provisions will be worth even the modest cost of setting up and running the authorisation process, or the cost of initially obtaining authorisation. I share his doubts about the costs that are set out in the impact assessment.

Under Section 116A(3) of the Act, a work cannot qualify as an orphan work unless the owner of the copyright,

“has not been found after a diligent search made in accordance with the regulations”.

Indeed, the regulations lay on the authorising body an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that the search relied on by the orphan licensee satisfies the requirements for a diligent search, while the licensee is required to demonstrate that a diligent search has been carried out. These are very necessary safeguards to protect against error and abuse. Alongside the regulations, the IPO has issued guidance notes to assist someone who wants to satisfy the authorising body that he is undertaking a diligent search.

Perhaps I am being unfair, but it seems to me that the IPO, as the authorising body, has gone to considerable lengths to disclaim some of its responsibilities. When the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, was the responsible Minister, he assured the Committee on 28 January 2013 that the UK scheme includes a requirement that any diligent search is verified by an independent authorising body, but surely the current proposals do not constitute such a verification process. I understand that the IPO has said that it would not “police” applications. Moreover, it is stated in the Intellectual Property Office guidance on diligent search that the applicant is required to submit no more than a completed checklist of sources from which they have sought information. Although applicants are instructed to retain evidence in the form of letters, e-mails and so on, they are not asked to submit this with their application. This cursory procedure is consistent with the estimated size and budget of the scheme set out in the impact assessment. Perhaps that explains the very low figure.

It seems that a view has been taken by the authorising body that because of the provisions of the Data Protection Act it would be precluded from disclosing relevant details of an applicant’s search, such as the identity of the people who had been contacted. Surely the provisions of the Data Protection Act are disapplied in circumstances where they would inhibit the proper exercise of statutory functions. What is the argument for preventing disclosure? Are licences to be awarded on the basis of a few ticked boxes? By contrast, I understand that the Canadian and Hungarian schemes both require the submission of evidence so that proper verification of the searches can be conducted by the authorising body.

That is all very puzzling: a prospective user of an orphan work would be infringing copyright by going ahead and exploiting a work without obtaining a licence. An authorising body surely has an obligation to satisfy itself that what has been done by each applicant meets the due diligence standard—in other words, that the applicant has looked for answers in the right places, not the wrong places—and it is very difficult to see how an authorising body might satisfy itself on that score without actually having looked at what had been done and considering what might have been done. This could not be a box-ticking exercise. Over and above the question of whether the authorising body undertakes to give thorough and critical scrutiny to what an applicant has done so as to be able to make a judgment about what might or should have been done, there is the question of the oversight of the authorising body. The authorising body fulfils a statutory function. Who is entitled to see that it is doing its job, and how would that be done?

14:30

Moreover, in the absence of a requirement to disclose the nature of a search, as I have mentioned, how is anyone to ascertain whether the authorising body is doing its search? The IPO appears to be of the view that the only person with an interest here is a revenant rights owner. Is that the Minister’s view of the position? If so, can she say how proper scrutiny can be exercised? Especially in the light of this, I and outside bodies affected are very keen to clarify who or what is to be held legally responsible for improperly issued licences. It would seem appropriate for the author or performer to have the right to take action against the body issuing the licence, not least because it is accessible and issues of collecting judgments against it should not arise, as they will, almost by definition, with any party that has obtained an improperly issued licence. Will a claim lie against the authorising body as one would against any other infringer, including a small claims track? There is the possibility that an application is fraudulent in the sense that an applicant knowingly seeks to obtain a licence by deceiving the authorising body. In that case, I take it that the licence is voidable. Can my noble friend confirm that that is the case? Are there any sanctions for deliberate or negligent misidentification? Another possibility is that a bone fide applicant turns out to be an incompetent searcher. Can we assume that an applicant who has put a lot of misdirected effort into looking in all the wrong places should not be granted a licence? The guidance note made it plain that the process of seeking to clear copyright material can be time-consuming and tricky. A revenant rights owner could, I presume, apply to have a licence set aside on the basis that the search did not comply with the due diligence requirement. Can my noble friend confirm whether that is correct?

These points, I believe, go to the fundamental basis of the regulations. However, there are other issues, such as how long a period, if any, a revenant rights owner has at the initial stage to challenge a grant of a licence in respect of a work. Is renewal of the licensing period after the initial period always to be no more than seven years? What will be the relationship between the public register and the Copyright Hub? Surely this is potentially of considerable importance. Has any agreement with stakeholders been reached as to the kinds of search technology that should be used to constitute a diligent search? Some of the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, might be allayed if there were clear search mechanisms that could be used by institutions. There has been some criticism of the wording of paragraph 3(6) and the fact that works where there is no subsisting copyright can be swept into these provisions but are not dealt with adequately. What can my noble friend say about that?

My noble friend helpfully outlined the safeguards that rights owners will have, particularly photographers, against the stripping of metadata to create orphan works. What does she know about the current take-up of the voluntary code on metadata? It is clear under the regulations that no sub-licensing is possible, and I welcome that, but what are the circumstances in which the authorising body will allow transfer? Finally, can back remuneration be claimed during the renewal period? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)]

My Lords, I rise simply to make clear my complete agreement with the remarks that have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. One is talking here of the expropriation of valuable property, valuable assets—the product of the labour of the creator of the copyright in question, whether it is music, art or literature—and often the means by which the creator makes his or her living. The creator may have become somnolent and may not be using the creation in question, but that is no ground, normally speaking, for expropriating the asset.

Compulsory expropriation has to be safeguarded properly. The safeguard in the present case depends upon the diligent search. What is a diligent search? It is almost as long as a piece of string. What might seem diligent to one person might not seem diligent to another. It is essential, in my respectful opinion, for the diligence of the search to be verified before action can be taken on the basis of it. Without that verification—without proper attention being paid to the genuineness of it—grave injustice may be done and this House should not lend itself to such a possibility.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I will not echo the words of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—it would be otiose to do so—but my concern is in relation to diligent search.

I feel that we are coming to the end of a long journey. This is something that some of us debated at length when discussing the Digital Economy Bill. Those discussions never came to fruition, but I remember that we had a number of assurances from the then Government about the importance of diligent search in relation to orphan works.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, said, we are talking in many cases about very valuable assets. My noble friend the Minister and her department have been right to create what may be, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, an intensive, laborious and bureaucratic process, but it is important that these assets are handled with care by whoever they may be dealt with in the years ahead. I congratulate both my noble friend the Minister and her predecessor, my noble friend Lord Younger, who have spent many hours on this subject trying to get it right.

Listening to noble Lords, I feel that the Minister is between a rock and a hard place in trying to please everyone. But I feel strongly that it would help if my noble friend could explain a little more about the process for diligent search and what is meant by “reasonable” before we come to a close on this, because there are many outside these walls who remain concerned about the future of these valuable assets.

[Viscount Bridgeman (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Bridgeman Art Library, where the use of orphan works is a not inconsiderable part of its business.

The library has in fact benefited from, shall we say, the slightly relaxed attitude that has been so eloquently referred to by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. My noble friend mentioned Canada and Hungary, where admittedly a very low number of licences are issued, but proper, diligent verification schemes are in progress there. We look to the Minister for reassurance.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the orders and noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is a bit of a reunion. I have been missing our regular fixes of IP craft and lore—and the pain that goes with having to read up on all this stuff again and trying to remember where we were the last time we were here. I hope there will be other opportunities, perhaps not in the immediate future, where we might get together. Maybe we should form a dining club or something and we could all go off and talk about it.

Like other noble Lords, I had some difficulty in disentangling the two orders. They point in slightly different directions, they do not take the same approach and the regulatory frameworks are rather different. But it seems a bit of a missed opportunity not to have had a single order, for the benefits of rights holders at least, which dealt with what the rules were and how they varied according to the domestic or the EU side. I can understand the logic for what the Government have done but it would have been possible, I think, to have had a go at that and come up with something that would have been easier to do.

Other points have already been raised in the debate, which I was going to touch on. However, again, we make a mistake if we try to think of this initiative, which was of course foreshadowed in earlier primary legislation, in the absence of considering how it impacts on the Copyright Hub. We all wish that well and think that it will be a huge step forward as regards the operation of the creative industries in this country—which must inevitably be dealing with exactly the same material as we are talking about here. If there is to be an effective Copyright Hub, it must also go to the 91 million pieces of information held in an orphan state.

Isn’t “orphan” a wonderful word? It makes you feel all warm and cuddly. You want to embrace these statutes and take them forward, because orphans must be helped. On the other hand, the reality is somewhat different.

I will make only a couple of points on the certain permitted uses of orphan works regulations, one of which is about the money. Like my noble friend Lord Howarth, I am not exactly clear what is happening as regards the fund that has to be created—if it has to be created—on behalf of revenant right holders when the relevant body operates to bring forward material that has previously been orphaned. It would be helpful if the Minister could respond to that so that we have a clear arrangement.

Given the amounts concerned—the quotations for examples that have been given already—they are so low that it is not reasonable to expect these bodies, many of whom are strapped for cash, to hold an escrow of moneys that could have been used to maintain and do this activity, particularly when it is likely that the payments out would be reasonably small and/or insurance could be obtained for it. A fair compensation is presumably trivial relative to the overall running costs of many of the institutions—certainly to the ones that I have been familiar with—and I would have thought that there is some room for flexibility. Perhaps that can be noted and picked up when we see the annual report or the first report on this.

My second point is that again, like a number of previous speakers, I am not sure what the logic of having a time-limited area is. If it is true that we are talking about material that is very unlikely to have revenant rights holders, and that an initial licensing period—which is certainly what we discussed when we talked about the primary legislation—is the appropriate thing to do, just in case it flushes out those things, then second and subsequent licences could easily be indefinite, particularly if there is a provision. I understand that the order says that if the right holder presents themselves and is clearly the owner of the work, the licence can be stopped immediately. I do not get the point of having excessive, burdensome bureaucracy over what would be a very small number of licences anyway at very low cost, which would cause both the institution and probably the IPO considerable additional work.

Other points apply to varying parts of both the regulations, and some of them are quite detailed, so I do not expect the Minister to respond to them all today; I look forward to one of her wonderful letters. First, there is the position of the revenant right holder. Is this person sufficiently considered by the scheme, and if so, is the treatment fair as a whole? The Government’s rather brave assumptions are that there will not be many revenants. I looked that up on Google and it turns out that it is a word for zombie—so there will not be many zombies. “Revenant” is probably a more technical term. Those that reappear, according to the Government, will be happy that their works have been uncovered, subjected to diligent search and licensed, and that the terms of the licences already granted—which cannot be varied—are fair. We do not know whether those assumptions are correct. However, I worry that a right holder who would have refused to grant a licence had he or she been located is unlikely to be pleased with the outcome, as the material is licensed and goes on the register as an orphan work, possibly with a licence that might be set to run for as long as seven years.

Stakeholders representing various right holders have already pointed out that the flow charts which the IPO had prepared made no reference to the possibility of a right owner who had not been identified by the applicant as part of the diligent search process coming forward once the application appeared on the register. The stakeholders suggested that it would be sensible to have a pause in the process once the application had appeared on the register, just for a short time before the licence was granted, to avoid the licence coming into force and the right holder shortly thereafter discovering that his or her work was being licensed.

The IPO has partially taken this concern on board but only to the extent that the flow chart now identifies the possibility of a right holder coming forward when the application is placed on the register, but before the licence has been granted. If that were to happen, the licence would not be granted under the terms of the scheme at all. It would be up to the right holder to determine whether a licence should be granted. However, the IPO has not been willing to allow for any specific period to elapse before a registered licence came into force. That is worth considering.

14:45

For works that have already been published, this might be a reasonable position, even though, with published material, the possibility obviously exists that a search judged by the IPO to be diligent fails to locate a rights holder, as has proved to be the case with similar schemes overseas.

The regulations for the domestic scheme, unlike the regulations implementing the directive, are gold-plated in that they cover photographs and unpublished material. As we all know, photographs are a very difficult area, particularly ones where metadata can be stripped off—there are many cases on record of this. We are all aware that photographers are very concerned about this regulation. The Minister helpfully drew out the legal processes that are available in such cases, but, as with all these things, I do not think that this will do the trick. We need a system that better meets the reasonable concerns of photographers. I hope that when we come to see the annual report, we will have better evidence to take on that, because there may be overclaims on both sides.

I think that the Minister accepted that unpublished material gives rise to concerns about privacy. Many of the arguments around this seem to rely on the fact that if material has been placed in a public archive that should be taken into account as a relevant consideration. I declare an interest as a former director of the British Film Institute. I know from my direct experience of the national film archive that people offering to make a deposit of material are not usually, if ever, required to declare that they are the owner of the copyright in such material, as opposed to the owner of the physical material. Indeed, the BFI experience is that the reverse is usually the case. We had a huge archive of British film and television programmes where there was no ownership of the copyright but simply ownership of the material.

If executors of an estate decide to offer a dead person’s archive of correspondence to a local authority, the deposit will probably include letters whose copyrights are the property of third parties who may never have seen the letter in question. As others have said, this all depends on how successful the scheme will be in setting a standard for “diligent search”. My noble friend Lord Howarth and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, expressed puzzlement as to exactly what role the IPO was playing in this. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could respond on that.

The lack of any standard being set may be attributable to the fact that there will be varying standards across the varying types of material that we are talking about, but it would be helpful to have in the statutory instrument some sense of what we are looking for here. Without that, all options are open. At least Clause 43 of the digital copyright Bill required advertisement in the press as part of the “diligent search”, but that has been dropped, so far as I can see, from the regulations. So what is a “diligent”—or as the notes say in places “diligence”—search? It would be helpful to have more examples.

We have touched on exactly how much material will be exposed to orphan works licensing, particularly under the domestic scheme. The legislation when we first heard of it was being talked up as an “open sesame” to Ali Baba’s cave of treasures in which millions of works worth thousands of millions of pounds were locked up. The most recent impact assessment paints a much more sober picture of a scheme that will make a small contribution to economic growth. There may be a treasure trove of millions of orphan works which will drive economic growth, but the truth is that we simply cannot know. As most of the material seems to be either newspapers or unpublished letters and correspondence, I rather doubt it. It will of course materially assist scholars and researchers, but it is unlikely to be a huge income generator. It would be helpful if the Minister could spend some time talking about the way in which reports on this activity will be presented to us. It is clear that we need raw numbers of diligent searches; the number of revenant rights holders who have emerged; the number of licences issued; and the number of appeals to the First-tier Tribunal and the Copyright Tribunal. We also need to know what else will be available. There will be an annual report, but there was also a commitment made to Parliament at Third Reading of the Bill to review the operation of the scheme after one year. I agree with other noble Lords that this might be too soon, but I think that we should have it because it will give us more detail of what we are talking about.

I want to put on record my thanks to Mr Tom Rivers who has helped with briefing for this debate. He mentioned to me in passing that he had spotted some infelicitous drafting in the regulations. Can the Minister indicate whether that was picked up in the final versions?

Finally, I turn to the commencement date. The regulations state that they will come into force on 29 October 2014; that is, in six days’ time. Clearly, the EU directive requires the EU scheme to be implemented on or before that date—which I presume is why the date is stated—but since we must have known that for at least five, if not 10, years, I wonder why the regulations were not readied in time for one of the common commencement dates, either 6 April or 1 October.

According to the better regulation framework guidance for officials, which I have already quoted in similar debates, the new,

“domestic measures (both regulatory and deregulatory) must come into force on a common commencement date—either 6 April or 1 October”.

It does seem to me that the business department, of all government departments and agencies, should reflect the guidance to officials which says:

“By requiring regulatory changes to occur at set times, Common Commencement Dates (CCDs) inform business and other stakeholders about forthcoming regulatory changes, helping them to plan and budget for new measures and to minimise any additional costs”.

That seems to be a good approach. Why did it not happen in this case?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions and comments. We always have lively debates on these intellectual property issues, partly because of the balance that one has to try to strike on the whole series of measures we have taken.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, welcomed the EU directive, as did I, and I in turn welcome the work he has done with the British Library. He is of course the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, which is where the Intellectual Property Office is located, so he is a friend for that reason as well. It was also good to hear of the interests of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, who introduced a family perspective into this debate to complement and assist the perspective of national collections such as the British Library.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, argued that the scheme did not meet the needs of museums and that the balance was wrong. Clearly, I respect his view, but I disagree. We must protect copyright owners as well as the cultural sector, which was a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, also felt that the UK scheme was bureaucratic and expensive. As he said, I care a lot about regulation and bureaucracy and will be keeping a beady eye on this. As we have heard, there are views on both sides. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, we are slightly between a rock and a hard place. We have to find a balance and move forward on these important intellectual property issues. There were many years of debate when little was done, and it is good that we have moved forward in recent times. We now have a policy on orphan works coming into effect.

We are mindful of the need to make the scheme affordable to cultural institutions. We have developed the orphan works licensing scheme, including the approach to pricing, in consultation with museums, libraries and archives. However, the needs of potential users of orphan works need to be balanced with the rights of copyright holders.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, also argued that the diligent search requirements were onerous. I will come on to talk about those in a little more detail in view of the other points that were raised, but I say at this point that it is a fundamental principle of diligent search that it needs to be a diligent search for all relevant rights holders of any given work. That is only fair. Of course, many libraries, museums and archives are already doing this. The difference will be that when those searches do not result in rights holders being found, the search will not have been wasted.

Of course, the EU directive covered only the heritage and cultural orphan works, not commercial works. The UK scheme also covers a broader field than the original EU directive. Despite our efforts to make the directive wider during its negotiations, it does not allow us to regulate commercial use. That also partly answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about why we had to have two statutory instruments, one under Section 2(2) and the other under domestic legislation, but we are of course debating them together.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked about licence fees. He said that if you multiply a minimal fee by millions of works, you get large sums.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To go back to diligent search, if I am picking this up correctly from what the noble Baroness has said, the irony will be that the position in the order reflecting the incorporation of the EU measure has got specified minimum requirements for a diligent search, but there are no such requirements in respect of the commercial work. That is, I think, the cause of the unease that we all feel. Does she not recognise that unless a similar or even greater level of scrutiny is required, the danger will always be in the minds of the rights holders that they are not being dealt with fairly in the domestic issues?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I think in fact that is not right. There will be rules for diligent search and indeed we have published guidelines on diligent search, which I am very happy to make available to the Committee. For exactly this reason, we are very aware of the interplay between the two schemes and that is something that we have been concentrating on during the extensive period of implementation and thinking about exactly how to implement this.

I would say that licence fees are not a tax. They are the price owed to the copyright holder. It is fair to pay for this, given that copyright is, in a sense, a property right, as has been said.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

If the copyright holder does not turn up, why would the money not go back to the institution that has paid for a licence fee? After all, the institution is incurring the costs of conservation, cataloguing—all the overhead costs of preserving these orphan works—and it seems that it would be a more fruitful use of the money to let it rest with or return to the cultural organisation rather than simply be pocketed by the IPO and BIS.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I will come on to address that point, if I may. I thank the noble Lord for repeating it.

Going back to the other points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, he talked about mass digitisation and blanket licensing because that, obviously, would help museums. In respect of the impact assessment, the non-commercial licence covers all non-commercial uses of a single work. The scheme is not intended for mass digitisation, as I think he knows, because it is only fair to search for all rights holders. He mentioned the review after a year. Of course, I hope I will be around on one side of the House or the other to assist in that review. Finally, he argued that we should consider an insurance approach. I am afraid that the insurance approach would not be lawful under EU law and there is no power provided under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, as I understand it, for that option.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, rightly talked about the property rights underlying copyright and the expropriation of property that could be at risk. I agree that the verification has to be proportionate.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised a number of points. Perhaps I could take some of them in turn. He asked about the contribution to growth. We believe that a modest contribution to growth is likely. The estimates in the impact assessment are based on licensing twice the number of works in the Canadian scheme, which licensed 12,000 works. This is because we have roughly twice the population of Canada. That scheme covers unpublished works; our scheme covers unpublished works. Of course, our cultural, heritage and creative sectors are, happily, larger than Canada’s. Ours will be an online process, which I hope will be more efficient. The consultation respondents such as the CBI suggested that benefits are expected but they were not able to quantify them at this stage. The IPO’s running costs are, we believe, likely to be in the range estimated in the impact assessment and not too low for those reasons.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked about the diligent search process—I think that was the main thing that people were concerned about. I have already referred to the guidance, which is available. It is right that the main burden of diligent search is borne by the user and not the state. We are taking a proportionate approach, asking not just about where applicants have searched but what the results were, where they found the work and why they want to use it, as well as having the ability to ask to see evidence of that search.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wondered why details of the searches could not be available for us all to see. Again, we have to be proportionate. Details could include the personal addresses of the descendants or the creator. Publishing such data about individuals is not justified as a default option. It would be a bit like demanding to see passport applications in full in case your identity was being stolen. However, the registry of orphan works will contain sufficient details for a rights holder to check. Search technologies—this was another question—are set out in the diligent search guidance that was drawn up with stakeholders. Electronic means are not useful if the work has not been digitised, which may often be the case with old works.

15:00

My noble friend Lady Buscombe asked if we could explain a bit more about what reasonable and diligent research represents. I can do no more than send her a copy of the booklets that have been prepared by the IPO—very good booklets, in my opinion. I was asked whether, if the diligent search is not up to standard or where there is a deliberate or negligent misidentification by the applicant, no licence will be issued. That carries its own penalty; the time and cost of making the application will have been wasted, so there is a penalty of that kind. Someone with a history of poor diligent searches would be more likely to be asked for additional evidence by the IPO.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones went on to ask about oversight so that we can check that the IPO is acting properly—a key question. As IP Minister, I will be accountable to Parliament for the running of the scheme as a whole. The IPO must produce an annual report under Regulation 11, as we have discussed, and at a minimum that has to set out the total revenue from licences, the total costs of running the scheme, the number of rights holders who have emerged and the payments made to them, and it may be that there is scope for putting extra things into that report. As a public body, the IPO is subject to all the usual controls, including oversight by the NAO and standards of public conduct, so it is a good home for this function. In any event there needs to be a balance in this whole area, as I think the different views expressed show.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, queried how long a rights holder had to check the register once an application had been made. Rights holders should not need to do this; a diligent search will find them in most cases. If the rights holder chooses to monitor the orphan works register, they will see the applications as they are received. They could come forward when the application was being considered. The noble Lord will know that Canada does not operate a waiting period. Indeed, some things need to be done quite quickly; if, for example, you are a television company seeking to use one of these works, you do not want to be bogged down in bureaucracy.

I turn to licences and when they might be transferable. Orphan works’ licences will not be fully transferable. The IPO can allow a licence to be transferred if there are compelling reasons to do so—possibly, for example, where a business that owns the licence has been taken over. On the question of what safeguards photographers have against the stripping of metadata, I repeat that this is a general problem and not caused by this licensing scheme. The voluntary code of practice on metadata was published only last year. Therefore, unfortunately, we do not have information on its voluntary uptake. However, diligent search and information on the provenance of the work will help to ensure that only genuine orphan works are licensed. Photographs licensed under the scheme are likely to be older works held in archives, often created by non-professionals, rather than professional works being exploited by the creator.

Lastly, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked whether remuneration could be claimed during the renewal period and whether the renewal will ever be for more than seven years. The renewal of an orphan work’s licence will be limited to a maximum of a further seven-year period. Where a licence is renewed, a further licence fee will be payable. This will be held for the rights holder in the same way as in the initial fee. To answer another question that was asked—and I made this clear in my own opening remarks—if there are surpluses, they are allocated for heritage, cultural and educational use.

I think that I have largely responded to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about whether there should be one scheme, but I have not answered the question of why we have an order coming in on 29 October without fuller warning. Obviously, the EU directive needs to come in on 29 October, which I think he accepts. We believe that having the UK and EU schemes coming in on the same date helps to avoid confusion. There has been extensive consultation with stakeholders. The last consultation paper was published in January 2014. As he will know, the common commencement date does not apply inflexibly to the implementation of directives, although he will also know that I am very keen on common implementation dates. I share his concern but it seems right not to use it on this one. The Government have already made it clear that they will review the scheme after 12 months. I have talked a little bit about what that could and might cover.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about unclaimed fees. Under the EU scheme there is no payment in advance, so there is no issue. However, under our scheme they will be kept by the IPO for eight years and then used to the fund the scheme. As I have said, any surplus will go to cultural or heritage uses. The noble Lord also argued that we should stop a licence immediately when an orphan work reappeared. That would create an undue element of business uncertainty. The process that we have developed is a better way forward.

To conclude, we will have an annual report, which we can of course debate. We are committed to a review at the end of 2015. I appreciate the range of views on this issue. Some argue that we have been too strict in protecting the creators; others say we have done too much to help our cultural institutions. As I said at the beginning, I believe we have found a good balance between the many interests. On that basis, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Copyright and Rights in Performances (Licensing of Orphan Works) Regulations 2014

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:06

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Licensing of Orphan Works) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) (No. 2) Order 2014

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:07

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) (No. 2) Order 2014.

Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of the order is to designate the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEx—as an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007 for the reserved legal activities of reserved instrument activities and probate activities. This will allow its members to conduct these activities without the supervision of solicitors and, once appropriate regulatory arrangements are in place, to establish its own practices to conduct these services.

By way of background and to give a complete picture, the Legal Services Board, which is the oversight regulator for approved regulators and licensing authorities under the 2007 Act, made a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor on 19 September this year that he make an order under Section 69 of that Act to modify the functions of CILEx. If the order is made it will provide CILEx with powers to allow it to make rules to provide for a compensation fund and also give it intervention powers via seeking an order of the High Court to intervene in a regulated entity.

The Lord Chancellor accepted the recommendation on 7 October and the Section 69 order was laid on 13 October, with the intention of it being commenced by the end of the year. If granted, it will allow CILEx, through ILEX Professional Standards, CILEx’s independent regulatory arm, to regulate entities as well as individuals. If both these orders come into force they will enable increased competition and innovation in the legal services market.

The Legal Services Act 2007 governs the regulation of legal services in England and Wales and established a new regulatory framework for legal services. The intention of the 2007 Act was to put the consumer at the heart of legal services and deliver a more effective and competitive market. It established a number of regulatory objectives that the Legal Services Board and approved regulators must promote, including the requirement to protect and promote the public interest and the interests of consumers, encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession and promoting competition in the provision of legal services by authorised persons.

The 2007 Act enabled the widening of the legal services market to allow for different regulators to regulate legal services and for different types of legal businesses to provide those services. Under the 2007 Act, only a person who is authorised by an approved regulator or licensing authority may carry on a reserved legal activity, unless they are covered by one of the limited exceptions. Approved regulators are responsible for ensuring that the persons authorised by them act in a way that is consistent with the regulatory objectives set out in the Act.

The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives offers one of the most flexible routes into the legal profession, allowing people from a variety of backgrounds to enter the legal profession, a fact that is reflected in its diverse membership. CILEx is already an approved regulator under the Act and has been able to authorise chartered legal executives to administer oaths and exercise rights of audience since the commencement of the Act. CILEx was also designated as an approved regulator for the conduct of litigation in May 2011 and is a designated qualifying regulator for immigration advice and services.

CILEx applied to the Legal Services Board in March 2013 to be designated as an approved regulator for reserved instrument activities and probate activities. The LSB then tested CILEx’s proposals against the criteria set out in the 2007 Act and they assessed that CILEx has both the capacity and the capability to undertake an extended regulatory role in the legal services sector. The LSB took advice from the mandatory consultees, as required by the Act: the Lord Chief Justice, the Legal Services Consumer Panel and the Office of Fair Trading.

The LSB is satisfied that CILEx has met the requirements of the Legal Services Act in that it has appropriate internal governance procedures in place so that regulatory decisions will be taken independently of representative ones; that CILEx will be competent and have sufficient resources to perform the role; and that CILEx’s regulatory arrangements make appropriate provision for the regulation of those it wishes to authorise and that provision has been made to prevent regulatory conflicts. Furthermore, the LSB is satisfied that appropriate complaints procedures will be in place, including mandatory co-operation with the Legal Ombudsman, and that CILEx will promote the regulatory objectives set out in Section 1 of the Act.

The LSB is satisfied that there will be no lowering of standards or lessening of consumer protection. It is satisfied that ILEX Professional Standards will be a capable and effective regulator in the legal services market. Its expansion in this field will help to contribute to the growth of the legal services market and bring further innovations, leading to benefits to the consumers of legal services. Following its consideration, the LSB made a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor on 9 December 2013, and earlier this year my honourable friend Shailesh Vara MP agreed in principle to make the present order designating CILEx as an approved regulator for the reserved legal activities of reserved instrument activities and probate activities under the 2007 Act.

Following the draft order being laid on 23 June of this year, the order was debated in the House of Commons on 8 September and gained committee approval. The order has been brought before this House at the earliest opportunity. This order will provide a greater choice of regulator for properly qualified and trained practitioners to carry on the reserved legal activities of reserved instrument activities and probate activities. It will pave the way for the continuing widening of the legal services market. I therefore commend the order to the Committee and beg to move.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this order granting the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, through the regulator, ILEX Professional Standards, the power to authorise individual practitioners to provide probate and conveyancing activities under the Legal Services Act 2007. As we have heard from the Minister, there are many reasons to support this order. What will it change? It will cut red tape and enable suitably qualified and competent CILEx members to be authorised to provide probate and conveyancing services. This will mean that businesses employing CILEx practitioners can be more efficient and flexible and can cut the unnecessary bureaucracies in place to sign off their work.

IPS currently regulates individual CILEx members. The order will enable them to regulate entities as well, meaning that CILEx members will be able to set up their own businesses and provide legal services to the public across the full range of reserved and regulated activities.

15:15

The benefits are numerous. First, the cutting of bureaucracy that prevents CILEx’s specialist lawyers from competing on an equal footing with other practitioners will enable existing firms to operate more effectively and less bureaucratically by freeing up their workforce. Specialist CILEx lawyers who are considering applying for these rights are already well experienced in these areas. Many of them have trained and qualified in these areas from the outset.

Perhaps more important is the consumer interest. Consumers will have greater choice over legal service providers. Consumers will be able to provide direct feedback to IPS on the quality of service that CILEx lawyers provide through the IPS’s consumer-focused website. All CILEx practitioners will be rigorously assessed against the challenging qualification and practice criteria set up for their specialism by IPS.

We heard from the Minister on the issue of diversity and social mobility. CILEx has been facilitating a flexible and adaptable route into law for 50 years. Its diverse members will be able to practise independently at more senior levels, running their own businesses if they wish. This cannot but increase diversity in the legal sector. In addition, I emphasise the greater choice over legal service providers and for many, I hope, a reduction in costs.

The two issues of probate and conveyancing that this raises are extremely important to the consumer. First, I will deal with probate. This challenge comes into people’s lives always at a very difficult and upsetting time and has to be dealt with at a very emotional time. Frankly, they get precious little sympathy from the Inland Revenue, which tends to make most of us feel that we are in the wrong before we even begin the process. The process of obtaining probate and understanding it is difficult, complex and bureaucratic in itself. There are too many consumers out there who are afraid of picking up the phone to get qualified help for fear of the costs involved. So I welcome this measure because it will make a difference to that, and it will provide more competition in the marketplace.

In relation to conveyancing, exactly the same applies. Frankly, this has not come soon enough. I have very current experience of conveyancing, in what you might call the old-fashioned way, which is proving very frustrating, slow and expensive. In the purchase of a flat without encumbrances, a purchase that in theory could be quick and straightforward, unfortunately the vendor has retained a solicitor, probably a very expensive one, from one of the inner circle firms, who has been extraordinarily slow to produce elementary information and has proved inaccessible and out of reach, using the old excuse that lawyers use—I say this as a member of the Bar—that they are “busy in court all day”, when we know that courts tend to sit between 10 am and 4 pm. Amazingly, the same solicitor calls himself a conveyancing solicitor but does not even do e-mail. It is ironic that the same firm—which is not far from your Lordships’ House—was enormously helpful to me when as a shadow Minister I took the Land Registration Act 2002 through your Lordships’ House. In particular, the firm assisted in shaping the framework for e-conveyancing.

So it is good that we are moving on. I welcome more competition among service providers, including the many very able, skilled legal executives who will be able to operate without a solicitor’s oversight. I have one question for the Minister relating to paralegals, and I speak as the founder patron of the Institute of Paralegals: is their position also being considered in relation to these rights?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of CILEx and as someone who started working with what used to be called managing clerks as long ago as 1957. I think I learnt most of my law from managing clerks of the old variety, who learnt on the job and did not have a CILEx qualification because there were not any then. I am strongly in favour of this statutory instrument for all the reasons that the Minister has set out.

I have a slight divergence of view from CILEx—although I suspect one could sort it out if it was here—over the idea that competition in these matters is always in the public interest. It certainly is not. Some of us are fearful that the changes in the legal services market in the past decade will prove to deliver some disastrous consequences in the next. I have no hesitation on that score relating to this statutory instrument, though, because the Legal Services Board is a proper, well staffed body that has made a thorough investigation of the fitness of CILEx and its subsidiary company to undertake the task allowed them by this change in the law. For those reasons, I am entirely in favour of the order. The Lord Chief Justice was absolutely right to raise the impact on standards of the competition that will be unleashed by this change in the law but, as I say, a very proper investigation has been undertaken. I strongly hope that it will be in the public interest.

I will mention a point that has not yet been mentioned. Reserved instrument activities, which form the subject of paragraph 2(a) of the order, are defined in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 2007 Act as:

“preparing any instrument of transfer or charge for the purposes of the Land Registration Act 2002”.

There is then some detail relating to that. This is not a massive breach in the status quo but still a very important one, for the reasons just mentioned. I have no doubt that many frustrated buyers and sellers of property in this land will be greatly helped by what is happening today, because I have no doubt that legal executives will set up their own firms to do just this sort of work. They will do it well, swiftly and at a very fair price, and they will be overseen by CILEx, which is an excellent body with high standards. It is driven not by the profit motive but by public interest concerns. That is all I wish to say.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, both my noble friends have been extremely eloquent in their support for the order. I will be extremely brief because I agree with every word that they have said, with some qualification regarding my noble friend Lord Phillips’ comments. I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society and as a partner in a major law firm. I have never been an advocate or supporter of a closed solicitors’ shop. I very much favour diversity and competition, particularly in the case of chartered legal executives. I welcome their ability to carry out a wider degree of work, as envisaged by the order. This is very consistent with the continued opening up of the legal market that I have generally supported. I did not hear the words “alternative business structures” in what my noble friend had to say at the outset, but I assume that this is consistent with the alternative business structures, which, again, I have always supported since their introduction because I believe that they are for the benefit of both business and consumers. I think, and my noble friend Lady Buscombe made this point extremely well, that in terms of both probate and conveyancing this will make a major difference to the competitiveness of that market.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not intend to detain the Grand Committee for very long. I agree with many of the comments that noble Lords have made so far in the debate. The Opposition fully support the proposal and endorse the reasons outlined by the Minister why it is necessary and welcome.

The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives provided me with a very helpful briefing that makes clear the benefits of the proposal, and I am grateful to them for that. I agree with the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, about what a good organisation CILEx is. It has done excellent work on a variety of areas, particularly on broadening the diversity of the legal profession, and I pay tribute to it for that.

Allowing CILEx to become a regulatory body in the areas of conveyancing and probate is welcome. It will help to cut bureaucracy and red tape and help to make things simple for everyone. However, it would help if the Minister could comment on the remarks made by the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He expressed concern that regulatory competition would have a detrimental effect on standards, that the variation in standards between regulators was inappropriate in principle and that a variation on standards may bring about a drive to the bottom.

I also noted that the former Lord Chief Justice had one matter of concern across the board—parity of standards when one has a proliferation of regulators—and he had further concerns as to whether the instrument deals with contentious or non-contentious probate. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us his views on those points as well. Having said that, this measure helps to encourage an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession, and consumers will have much greater choice. That is very welcome and I am very happy to agree the order.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. It has been helpful to identify concerns and I hope that I will address them—although there did not actually seem to be that many, as far as I could understand it. I have been able to set on record why the Government have decided to designate CILEx as an approved regulator, and I am pleased to hear what I think was the universal approval of CILEx as a suitable regulator for the reserved instrument activities and probate activities.

A number of questions and points were raised. My noble friend Lady Buscombe asked about paralegals. I am not 100% sure what the definition of a paralegal is so I will write to her to ensure that I have all the details. There are currently no proposals to extend the regulation to paralegals as a group, but obviously if a paralegal wanted to undertake a reserved activity, they would need to seek authorisation from one of the approved regulators, such as CILEx, and would have to undertake the correct test to ensure that the regulator could approve them.

My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury talked about the issues surrounding the Legal Services Act in the context of competition. The Act has been passed by this House. Whether or not competition will be improved—I think that most people, and certainly the Government, feel that it will—in terms of this order, which appoints CILEx as an approved regulator, I think he was happy to agree that it is a satisfactory regulator for these two extra activities.

15:30

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said that I had not mentioned alternative business structures. One of the reasons I mentioned the background to the extra order that is going to be laid in the next few months was to explain that, under Section 69 of the Act, when that is laid before the House, and if it is agreed, CILEx would be able to authorise entities as well. This would be an example of where authorised business structures could come into effect. Both orders need to be laid. The two go together, which is why I brought that in.

In his supportive speech, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the comments of the former Lord Chief Justice, who was one of the mandatory consultees on this. The LSB is fully aware of the specific concerns that the former Lord Chief Justice had and had them in view when considering applications. Parliament legislated clearly in the Legal Services Act 2007 about the objectives of the Act, which include, among other things, encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession and promoting competition in the provision of services provided by authorised persons under the Act. The 2007 Act therefore aims, among other things, to achieve a more effective and competitive market. Having CILEx extend its regulatory powers will help this.

This order will allow CILEx to regulate its members to conduct those activities as authorised persons in their own right. In addition, once further regulatory arrangements are in place, which I mentioned, CILEx members will be able to establish their own practices to conduct these services. This order, combined with the forthcoming Section 69 order, will facilitate the widening of the legal services market, thereby increasing competition and innovation in the legal services market while maintaining high standards. Consumers will receive greater choice, higher standards and competitive prices.

Motion agreed.

Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2014

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:32

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2014

Relevant documents 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, the order before us today amends the judicial appointments criteria to enable registered patent attorneys and registered trademark attorneys to be appointed persons able to review the decisions of the Intellectual Property Office as part of the appeals process. Section 10(2) of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 inserted new Section 27A in the Registered Designs Act 1949 under which the Lord Chancellor appoints an appointed person to hear appeals against decisions of the Intellectual Property Office in relation to design rights.

This instrument amends the Judicial Appointments Order 2008 to include an appointed person in the list of those offices for which registered patent attorneys and registered trademark attorneys can satisfy the judicial appointment eligibility condition. The purpose of this draft order is to support the Intellectual Property Act 2014 and its aim to introduce a quicker and more cost-effective route of appeal against design decisions of the IPO. At the moment, the route of appealing against decisions of the IPO in relation to designs is via a dedicated tribunal, which has been used only twice in the past 10 years. It offers no flexibility or route for further appeal. The Government’s aim is to have a process in place for design rights that mirrors the appeals process already in place for appeals against trademark decisions

The decisions of the IPO in relation to trademarks can be appealed to a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor—an “appointed person”—based on a recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission. This gives the appeal process some degree of independence from the IPO. To do this in relation to decisions on designs, the IPO has amended Section 27A of the Registered Designs Act 1949 to include similar provisions to those in the Trade Marks Act.

I will give the Committee some background. Following the Hargreaves review of intellectual property and growth, the Government have been carrying out a programme of work to determine how to improve the designs legal framework. This has resulted in changes to design legislation included within the Intellectual Property Act 2014, including those I referred to earlier in relation to determining appeals.

The Government’s aim has been to improve access to justice for businesses using the UK designs registration system by allowing them to choose a low-cost, reliable and efficient appeals route system. The changes make the system easier to understand for users of different forms of intellectual property by simplifying the appeal framework and aligning it with the trademark appeal route. This draft order seeks simply to support that aim by allowing a registered patent attorney or registered trademark attorney who holds a relevant qualification to be eligible to be a person appointed under Section 27A of the Registered Designs Act 1949.

The principles of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 have already been approved by this House. This order seeks merely to support the implementation of that Act by allowing the appointment of appointed persons to hear appeals against design decisions of the IPO. I therefore commend this draft order to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for setting out the details of the draft order. The order provides a technical amendment to the Judicial Appointments Order 2008 and will allow the Lord Chancellor to appoint registered patent attorneys and registered trademark attorneys as appointed persons, allowing them to hear appeals against decisions of the Intellectual Property Office.

The Opposition have no issues with the proposal. I have two brief questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. As he is aware, the majority of the provisions of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 are set to commence in April 2015. The part of the 2014 Act amended by the order enables the appointment of appointed persons who meet the new criteria. Will the Minister explain why the order is due to take effect before the Act comes into force? Why can we not just wait until the relevant legislation has come into effect? Secondly, the law in this area is highly specialised and complex. Will the Minister confirm to the Grand Committee that he has confidence that the Judicial Appointments Commission has the necessary capacity and expertise to make appointments in this area? However, I put on record the Opposition’s support for the order and look forward to the reply from the noble Lord.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his questions. He first asked why we were making this change when the commencement date for the Intellectual Property Act 2014 has not passed. The order was laid before Parliament on 7 July 2014. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the department with oversight for the Intellectual Property Act 2014, enacted the relevant parts in respect of the new appeals process on 15 July 2014. The statutory instrument was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 16 July 2014 and by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 21 July 2014. The relevant parts of the Act have been put in place and this statutory instrument will allow the appeals process to be in place in time for the Intellectual Property Act commencement date of April 2015.

The other question asked by the noble Lord was whether we are confident that the Judicial Appointments Commission has capacity. The answer is yes.

I believe this to be a reasonable amendment which aims to support the Intellectual Property Act 2014 and help UK businesses. I hope that noble Lords agree with me that this is a proportionate and sensible measure.

Motion agreed.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2014

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:40

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7 July now be considered. It might be helpful if I provide the Committee with a brief summary of what the order seeks to achieve. The order is made under Section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for an order to provide for any functions, so far as they are exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or as regards Scotland, to be exercisable by the Scottish Ministers instead of by the Minister of the Crown.

Section 70(3)(a) of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 makes provision for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to set the cap on the amount that local authorities may spend on discretionary housing payments in a financial year. Pursuant to this, the actual cap is set out in the Discretionary Housing Payments (Grants) Order 2001.

This Section 63 order will transfer that function of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to the Scottish Ministers instead. This will enable the Scottish Ministers, by order, to determine the limit on the total amount of expenditure that may be incurred by a Scottish local authority in making discretionary housing payments in the financial year 2014-15—that is, the current financial year—and onwards.

The order allows the Scottish Ministers to decide at which level the cap on discretionary housing payments, to be made by local authorities, is to be set. This will give local authorities and Scottish Ministers increased flexibility to support claimants with their housing costs in this way, as they deem appropriate. The order demonstrates the United Kingdom Government’s continued willingness and commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work.

As noble Lords will be aware, the commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, has been established to look at additional powers for the Scottish Parliament, and welfare issues may well be a significant part of its deliberations. However, these measures relate to the current financial year and I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is right that we take them forward at this time.

The order was considered by the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee and was then passed without a Division in the Scottish Parliament on 20 August. It was considered, too, by the Delegated Legislation Committee in the other place on the 14th of this month and passed the following day. If your Lordships’ House approves this order, it will then proceed to the Privy Council. I therefore commend the order to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order to the Committee. I want also to express my usual thanks to the Minister’s staff for making sure that I was briefed. I would be at quite a loss without those briefings and I want to put on record that appreciation.

The Labour Party supports this order, made under the Scotland Act 1998. As the Minister said, it transfers certain functions of the Work and Pensions Secretary to Scottish Ministers. The transfer concerns the ability to cap the entire amount of expenditure that may be required by a local authority in awarding discretionary housing payments. This amendment to the Scotland Act is supported, as it demonstrates the delivery of further devolution pledges and grants control to Scottish Ministers over a payment that they requested. There is total agreement between the two Front Benches on that.

15:45

However, one aspect of the order is worth mentioning for a couple of minutes, which is the two words, “bedroom tax”. I know that Ministers are trained to call it—what is it again?—discretionary housing payment or something like that, which is some cover-up for what is basically a bad tax on a lot of poor people. It is interesting that a Liberal party Minister is putting forward this measure because, quite frankly, it would not have survived without the Liberal Peers and MPs marching into the Lobbies to support the Conservative Government on the bedroom tax. I am very pleased that the Labour Party in Scotland played a very prominent role in putting pressure on the Scottish Government to come forward with something like this so that we can take the pressure off ordinary people in Scotland at least. As a unionist I express regret that the same situation cannot apply in England and Wales. However, having made that very slightly acrimonious comment—having a Liberal Minister in front of me, I just cannot seem to resist it—once again, I thank the Minister for his demonstration and commitment to devolution, which I suppose is in the long run a bigger subject.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his support for this order, and the support of his party. I did not think that he would resist the temptation to refer to the removal of the spare room subsidy—of course, it is the removal of a subsidy; it is not a tax. However, as I know that he is a keen follower of Liberal Democrat policy, he will know the position that my party has expressed in recent weeks with regard to that proposal. I will not abuse the Committee by elaborating on that here, but he will be well aware of it. However, he is right; this is an illustration of how the devolution settlement works and its flexibility I think I am right to say that this is the first Section 63 order in this Parliament—I think some of the earlier orders were debated under Section 104—and it shows that the Scotland Act has a number of different measures with which we can make the devolution settlement work, not only for the people of Scotland but also for that of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Motion agreed.

15:48

Sitting suspended.

India: General Election 2014

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:52

Asked by

[Lord Dholakia]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the outcome of the 2014 general election in India.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to wish all colleagues in this House a happy Diwali. This is probably the most festive season for us, and the right day on which to open a debate on this subject.

This debate is timely. The election of Narendra Modi and the BJP majority Government is a unique opportunity for the United Kingdom to reinvigorate momentum in its relationship with India. We were right to re-engage with Narendra Modi in 2012 after the 10 years of diplomatic isolation of the Gujarat Government where he was the Chief Minister.

Let me first declare my interest. I was honoured to be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s business adviser. We led the first UK trade delegation to India since its landmark election in May. This gave me a first-hand opportunity to see why India matters to the United Kingdom.

Britain is in a unique position to work more closely with India because we have educational, historic, cultural and people-to-people ties between our two nations. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has visited the country three times since 2010, and many Ministers have followed. As I said, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, led the first UK trade delegation in September. Only last week we had the visit of India’s Foreign Minister, Sushma Swaraj, to the United Kingdom.

We also have the distinction of having here one of the largest populations of the Indian diaspora, estimated at 1.5 million. However, let us not underestimate India’s position worldwide. Narendra Modi has already visited Japan and the United States. There is a positive dialogue with China and a renewed relationship with neighbouring countries and the Middle East. We cannot continue to plead our special relationship with India. We have to work hard to build renewed confidence in our bilateral relationship.

Evidence of this is that our diplomatic network in India has become the largest in the world, and credit must go to High Commissioner James Bevan for this. There is now increased co-operation on foreign policy and a genuine understanding on matters of defence and security. There are still irritants in the field of education, where there is a drop in the number of students coming to the United Kingdom for further education. Bilateral trade is likely to double by next year, and there is a renewed co-operation on matters of research and innovation.

Prior to the BJP’s victory, India had gone through a period of stagnation with a declining economy. A decade of Congress rule had failed to combat corruption or enact major policy measures. The economic reform had not materialised. The BJP’s election win was the logical outcome. The country was crying out for a strong Government and the BJP provided that. It is to Mr Modi’s credit that it is the first time in 30 years that any single party has secured an absolute majority. I well remember that the Conservative Party’s election slogan during the Macmillan Government was, “You have never had it so good”. The BJP’s slogan had a similarity: “Good days are coming”. We now have the most powerful Prime Minister that India has had for many years.

People’s expectations are great and we have to wait to see how these are delivered. So far we have seen clarity in Mr Modi’s vision of domestic matters. His Independence Day speech on 15 August set out his vision on governance, which included a plea for a unified, selfless, skilled and peaceful India. He was not afraid to identify issues that have featured prominently in the past years. These included concerns about rape, equality, and the safety of women and girls. There was emphasis on reform, which involved more devolution of power and control which would result in more economic liberalisation and less central control. Mr Modi launched his flagship programme aimed at tackling poverty by ending financial untouchability. Under his project, bank accounts would be provided to millions without access to formal banking facilities.

There are, of course, challenging times ahead. It is estimated that at least 60% of India’s population is below the age of 35. It is further estimated that 10 million to 15 million young people enter the labour market each year. A high percentage of this number is employed in informal sectors. The emphasis has to shift towards the organised sectors. This gives the BJP Government a unique opportunity to reform labour laws and rebuild the industrial sector. The problem is massive but the BJP Government in Gujarat can point to its economic growth, which has continually exceeded that of other states in India. Then there are areas such as the agricultural sector, where securing income for farmers and improving the outdated infrastructure are essential. This will also require the co-operation of state government, which has not been easy in the past.

So what has Britain to offer India? It was obvious during our delegation’s visit that the new Government have placed economic development high on their agenda. India needs investment, and the UK is already its biggest G20 investor—and we can do more. The EU is India’s largest trading partner and India is a strategic partner of the EU. However, India wants more trade. Our bilateral trade is over £16 billion and we can certainly improve on this. In addition, India is looking for capital, and the City of London is the world’s biggest financial centre and well placed to provide expertise and advice. We have the investment, expertise and experience to make that happen.

In the field of education, some of our leading universities and colleges already have offices in India, attracting thousands of Indian students to the UK every year. The Minister is well aware that despite 85% of applications to the British high commission being approved within two weeks, there is a drop of nearly 20% in students coming to the United Kingdom. We need to examine our immigration policies to ensure that there are no detriments here. In addition, we should promote more student exchanges, joint research projects and learning partnerships both here and in India. I would welcome the Minister’s action in this matter.

There are issues of regional priorities, and the international community is looking to see how India intends to continue strengthening regional ties. Prime Minister Modi’s first act on his inauguration was to invite SAARC countries, including Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. This good start was halted in its tracks with the cancellation of the India-Pakistan talks. India did not take kindly to the Pakistan high commissioner meeting Kashmir separatist leaders. India’s position on Kashmir is well established, and the state is an integral part of India. Evidence of that fact is that successive Indian Governments have made efforts to ensure that a free and fair democratic process is followed in this state. Prime Minister Modi’s election campaign talked about Hindu-Muslim unity and invited both countries to join the fight against poverty. Evidence from a recent poll found that more than 68% of Indian Muslims felt safer under the Modi Government than under previous Governments. Over the years, the plight of the Kashmir Pandits cannot be ignored. There has been systematic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus and terrorist activities from across the border have continued. India’s position on Kashmir has been consistent. It expects Pakistan to tackle extremism and cross-border terrorism. It demands justice against the Mumbai suspects. The prize for co-operation is high. Full trade normalisation will benefit both countries.

I welcome the UK’s position. India is a mature democracy. There are political upheavals in Pakistan. It is not for Britain to mediate between India and Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif has to take steps to demonstrate to India that he is sincere in wanting to improve relations. Terrorism from across the border is unacceptable. We need to exercise care that in debates and discussions, particularly in this country, we should not support those who are determined to undermine the world’s largest democracy’s process of economic development.

16:02

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has done us great service in introducing this debate, and I am honoured to be among so many Indian friends. We know that the noble Lord has done this country a service as the Deputy Prime Minister’s adviser. We give him full credit for what he has achieved.

I acknowledge Prime Minister Modi’s success in the election. I fully accept that he has made an excellent start in both foreign and domestic policies. I am sure his support for the business community will have attracted a lot of admirers in this country, although I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about our immigration rules possibly keeping out some of those people. In his Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Modi made some impressive and even moving promises. He said he comes from a poor family and wants dignity for the poor. He spoke up for gender equality and the low castes. He expressed disgust with poor sanitation and the condition in which millions have to live in his country.

Last year, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I took part in a march in Nepal for better water and sanitation and in a conference attended by MPs from all over South Asia. I know how important the WASH programme is worldwide and how seriously it is being taken by India. I know Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Kathmandu went down well in Nepal and it should mean greater co-operation between the two countries, not least on energy.

Prime Minister Modi was not elected for promising these things but because of the business sector’s confidence in him since the Gujarat miracle as well as the electoral failures of Congress and, even more, perhaps, the momentum of the BJP in building support over many years. He also stands before the vast majority of the electors as one of the poor. They will identify him with themselves and expect him to live up to these promises. On the global scale, despite its economic advance under Manmohan Singh, which has now faltered, India remains one of the poorest countries yet one of the most influential. With its membership of the BRICS group, the post-2015 agenda coming up and the setting of new UN sustainable goals, Modi is going to have to deliver a range of promises both to the world at large and to his own people. As he says, good days are coming.

The stakes are, as usual, very high. The report of the high-level panel, on which the UK played a leading role, states that the new order must “leave no one behind”, transform economies, build peace and effective institutions and forge a new global partnership. No one will be surprised that, when you come closer down to earth, India falls very short of these aspirations, especially when it comes to the situation of the low caste and the minorities. The fact is that there are atrocities and examples of hatred or prejudice every day against the lowest caste, the Dalits, and no one is stopping or reporting them except a fairly small number of NGOs that have the power to attract law enforcement agencies to these cases. I have personal experience of this in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Only last week the Guardian reported that a 15 year-old Dalit boy was set alight with petrol for allowing his goat to stray into a neighbouring landowner’s field. One extraordinary recent case is of the newly elected Chief Minister of Bihar, himself a Dalit, who visited a local temple, after which the whole temple was disinfected by high-caste Hindus.

A European Parliament library note says that there are 112 newly elected MPs in the Lok Sabha with a serious criminal record; that is one in five. Many of them, perhaps most, are of course in the ruling party. Against that background, can we expect legislation any time soon? In fact, there is a positive move by the Indian Government to translate the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Ordinance 2014, enacted by the previous Government, into a new Bill. Many human rights organisations are hopeful that the new legislation, which is under consideration now, will be passed at the earliest opportunity and be able to fix many loopholes in the existing law to protect the excluded communities. I also assume that our own DfID will do its best to support the NGOs working in this field, and perhaps the Minister could confirm that on the record.

I would also be grateful to hear the Minister’s analysis of the Muslim vote. Here we have a country with a vast Muslim population—the world’s third largest—grossly underrepresented in the Lok Sabha with only 20 MPs, its lowest ever number, with no seats among the ruling party. I am told, and indeed have read, that there were Muslim families, especially those who had admired the BJP’s success among the business class in Gujarat, who were not only sympathetic to but actually voted for the BJP. This seems extraordinary in the light of the terrible events in Gujarat in 2002, when hundreds died, mainly Muslims. Everyone remembers the Prime Minister’s long involvement with the RSS/Jan Sangh movement. However, it also perhaps shows the depth to which traditional Muslim support for Congress has fallen over the years.

According to one source, there was one Muslim group that completely turned a blind eye to anti-Muslim violence in 2002 because “as a thriving business community they didn’t want principles to come in the way of their market share in goods and commodities”. Having said that, I know from talking to Muslim friends before and since the election that the BJP still inspires fear among many Muslim minorities in several states, especially in Gujarat, Maharashtra and UP. There are deep divisions in many urban communities, amounting in some places to ghettoes. Basharat Peer, a well known Kashmiri journalist, writing in the New York Times earlier this year just before the election, described the situation in Ahmedabad. I will not quote the whole story, but it provides an example. He writes that he rode around Juhapura—the city’s largest Muslim ghetto at about 400,000 people—

“on the back of a friend’s scooter … The deeper we went into the neighborhood, the narrower the streets, the shabbier the buildings, the thicker the crowds. The edge of the ghetto came abruptly … ‘This is The Border,’ my friend said. Beyond the field was a massive concrete wall topped with barbed wire and oval surveillance cameras. On the other side, we could see a neat row of beige apartment blocks with air conditioners securely attached to the windows—housing for middle-class Hindu families”.

He quotes a 41 year-old resident, Mr Pathan, who says,

“‘The sun is allowed into Juhapura. The rain is allowed into Juhapura. The wind is allowed into Juhapura … I get a bill for water tax and pay it, but we don’t get piped water here.’ The locals rely on bore wells, which cough up salty, insalubrious water”.

Mr Pathan explained:

“‘My father said, ‘When the storm comes, you don’t get more than 10 minutes to run’”—

a clear reference to the threat of sectarian violence.

I quote that story because a friend of mine lives in Ahmedabad and he knows it to be true. He says that there are two very separate real estate markets, originally arising from the Disturbed Areas Act, which prevents Hindus from selling property to Muslims. That was originally intended to prevent communal violence, but in practice it is a recipe for apartheid.

Finally, another concern of Muslims is that, whatever assurances are given, the Prime Minister refuses to condemn his own MPs and senior leaders when they indulge in inflammatory rhetoric. I quote no less an authority than Siddharth Varadarajan, former editor of the Hindu, who has regularly described the BJP’s demonisation of Muslims and its dirty tricks during political campaigning in UP. It being Diwali, I wish the new Indian Government continuing success, but the point is that, however many promises the Prime Minister makes, he has to live down a long record of prejudice and discrimination in his own party. More importantly, he has to carry out and implement the legislation that he is proposing so that minorities can all see and believe what they are hearing.

16:12

[Lord Paul (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for providing us with this opportunity to focus on an issue that is timely and important. The relationship between Britain and India is unusual and remarkable: unusual because we have moved without rancour from an imperial association to a lasting friendship of equals; remarkable because it is rare that great nations with such different cultural wellsprings share unshakeable common commitments to democracy and the rule of law.

As we reflect on these affinities and how they flow into our assessment, we should note that this is a very special year for India. In May, India engaged in the largest democratic happening in human history. Its 16th national election embraced an electorate of more than 800 million voters, a larger number than all the combined electorates of the European Union and North America. It takes more than 30 separate national elections to produce the governing institutions of the European Union and North America; it takes just one election to produce the Government of India.

The election of 2014 was also marked by a new maturity in voting. At these polls, Indians transcended old divisions of caste and religion, largely leaving behind sectarianism, to vote for national concerns such as employment and anti-corruption. A new leader—we must congratulate Mr Narendra Modi—was able to secure a one-party majority and a stable Government after many years of minority or coalition rule. In these days of political turmoil, times when democracy often seems so unstable and fragile, this bodes well for the future of India.

When I speak of affinities and common commitments, I am well aware that Britain and India have many differences and many divergent interests. Yet, after a lifetime linked to both societies, I am deeply conscious that the things that unite us are far greater than those which divide us. This is why I am concerned, and share the disquiet that so many Indians feel, about the stream of ungenerous and often ill-informed advice that is directed from this country to India, generally offering unsolicited counsel on how India should conduct its democracy and manage its affairs. I shall provide a few instances.

On human rights, there are cases of abuse in India but they are invariably investigated through independent judicial enquiries and the outcomes are inevitably taken very seriously. Ill founded allegations are made over and again, suggesting Indian indifference to these situations.

On corruption, there are serious issues, but the Modi Government have addressed this with unprecedented vigour and seem to be making progress on this hugely complex problem, a problem that your Lordships well know is not confined to India. Even Britain is not exempt. Little, if any, credit is given to the determined efforts now under way to correct this situation.

On Kashmir, there is a cascade of intrusive comment, instruction and advice. India is in constant discussion with Pakistan and has made it clear that Kashmir is an integral part of India.

Most Indians, irrespective of whether or not they support Mr Modi, were profoundly upset when a few years ago some Governments refused him a visa, or were reluctant to issue him with one. The issue was sectarian riots in the state of Gujarat and the very sad loss of life on both sides. However, twice thereafter Mr Modi was democratically re-elected as the Chief Minister of that state, and the Supreme Court cleared him of any blame. These are just some random examples of the continuous and irritating admonitions that are endlessly repeated, sometimes by those whose irresponsibility is surprising.

The point I am making is not that transgressions should be overlooked or excused, but that the needless pursuit of ill-informed criticism and unfair comment can only damage the good relations that characterise the Indo-British nexus. The haranguing of proud and independent countries is not conducive to discourse between democratic nations. I am sorry to see the slow decline of the Indo-British relationship over the past decade. When I ended my five-year term as co-chair of the UK-India round table in 2005, relations between the two countries were about the best they had ever been, although I am not claiming any personal credit for that. Now is the time to re-establish those links and welcome honest dialogue between us. India has an unparalleled opportunity to progress in a way that will provide opportunity for all its people. As Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said this week, we are for,

“a market economy but with a social conscience”.

Let us do what we can to assist India’s advancement, as I am sure the Indian people will respond with great vigour and that will be a win-win situation for both countries.

Before I close, I would like to raise one small point. When the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited India in July, they announced with great fanfare that a statue of Mahatma Gandhi would be erected in Parliament Square as a sign of the concord between our two nations. Initially the Indian people were delighted by this generous gesture, but I am afraid that a degree of doubt has crept in because the funds are going to be raised by public subscription. The Chancellor himself has said that the British economy is in great shape, so I find it rather surprising that Her Majesty’s Government are unable to fund this modest project.

Today is a day of sublime importance in India. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said in his opening, it is Diwali, the festival of lights, which symbolises the victory of good over evil, of knowledge over ignorance and of hope over despair. It is a metaphor that I hope will inform the perceptions and assessments that this debate concerns.

16:21

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Short Debate, not least because it has been obtained and opened by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I congratulate him and the other speakers, and we look forward to the Minister’s reply to the important Question that the noble Lord has asked—namely, the Government’s assessment of the outcome of the 2014 general election in India. I thank the noble Lord for his Diwali wishes. As he knows, I come from Leicester, where we are proud to have the largest Diwali celebrations anywhere outside the subcontinent.

I start by restating what all of us believe, that India is a magnificent and great country which, placed in the modern world, is growing in strength and influence year after year. In this country, we are obsessed by a general election next year in which roughly 50 million citizens will have the right to vote and perhaps 30 million will vote. It is worth repeating that the general election in India involved 815 million eligible voters, of whom 551 million voted—that is over 66%—to elect a new Lok Sabha and Government of India. It was a brilliant logistical exercise but, much more significantly, it was a demonstration of the principles of democracy in action that no other country in the world can come near to. In a world full of one-party Governments, dictatorships and phoney elections, for almost 70 years India has stood out as the world’s largest functioning democracy, in spite of political, military and economic difficulties that might well have destroyed democracy in a lesser country.

The result of the election surprised the world, not because it was not widely believed that the BJP would win and that Mr Modi would become Prime Minister but because of the extent of that victory. A majority for one party of members of the Lok Sabha is a rare event. When the BJP achieved it and could have governed alone, that it chose not to do so but preferred to be the dominant party in a coalition Government, with 337 seats out of 545, was no doubt in the tradition of modern Indian politics but also with the awareness that it achieved its majority of seats with 31% of the total vote.

All elections everywhere are called watershed elections, but the 2014 general election in India can genuinely be described by that name. It seemed as though the Congress party coalition Government had perhaps run out of steam, having enjoyed a successful first five years of its 10-year term. From afar, it seems as though the country wanted change. Perhaps a rather loose comparison with British political history in 1979 and—dare I say it—in 1997 is not too far-fetched.

Commentators have argued with some force that Mr Modi’s appeal was not what has been described as his “bold Hindu nationalism” but rather expressed the view that a liberalisation of the Indian economy to increase growth rates, an attack on what was perceived as being too much corruption, plus an appeal to the vast and growing youth vote and across caste as well, were more significant factors in his victory.

In the five months that have passed—which is an incredibly short time to make any sweeping judgments—it is clear that Mr Modi is the dominant figure in his Administration. At home and abroad, it is he who makes the news, and of course it is by his actions that his Government will eventually be judged. From the BJP victory in state elections this week in Haryana and Maharashtra, both states unused to BJP leadership, it is clear that the Prime Minister’s honeymoon period is far from over. There has been some impatience about the pace of economic reform, and some criticism of the July budget. However, only this week a series of announcements involving labour laws, diesel prices and the Indian coal industry have led commentators to argue that the pace of reform is being stepped up.

Mr Modi has also been busy in foreign affairs, with considerable publicity concerning his visits to Brazil, the United Nations and Japan. As we have heard in this debate, Britain is tied closely to India on so many fronts: history, a belief in democracy, a very large number of British citizens with Indian backgrounds, the trading relationship and the investment in each other’s countries, to name but a few. The present Government in Britain, as much as the previous one, have made the relationship a priority for this country. We of course support the work done by current Ministers, who no doubt supported us when we were in power as well. India is too important a country as far as British interests are concerned for there to be any party-political point-scoring. However, the decline in the number of Indian students who study in the United Kingdom, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is a matter that needs responding to, and needs some quick action.

This country has much work to do with India on climate change, where the Indians have a huge role in global climate talks, particularly the Lima climate change conference in December, and in Paris in 2015. India was this week re-elected to the UN Human Rights Council, which of course we also welcome.

The next few years will be an exciting time for India—but when is it not an exciting time in India? A former British high commissioner once told me, when I was lucky enough to visit India as a Minister, that if you look out of a window on a car journey in India, anywhere and at any time something interesting is always going on. He was absolutely right—India is permanently interesting. I am proud to have spent some of my early years in Chennai—of course, when I was young it was called Madras—and of course I was also lucky enough to represent many British Indians as a councillor in Leicester for many years. We on this side wish the new Government well in their difficult and important work.

16:30

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up this debate, particularly as it was opened by my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who first took me to India some time ago and from whom I have learnt a great deal about the sub-continent. I thank him for initiating today’s debate and for his loyal and continuing interest in relations between Britain and India. I was glad that the Indian Government recognised this when they awarded my noble friend the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman some time ago. I thank other noble Lords who have participated in this debate.

Perhaps I should first say a few words on the terrible storms that hit India’s eastern coast several days ago. I extend on behalf of the UK Government our deepest condolences to all those who have lost family and loved ones after Cyclone Hudhud hit the eastern Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. The cyclone caused devastating damage to life and property, and our thoughts are with those who died. The Indian Government are working well to manage the situation, and the UK will continue to monitor the evolving situation there and stand ready to assist where it is appropriate to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked how the British Government see the outcome of India’s election. We all watched as India undertook this massive, open, democratic election, an enormous feat of organisation and a peaceful transfer of power—something which many Governments and states in the world are sadly not yet very capable of doing. More than 500 million people voted and the election saw the Indian people give the BJP an absolute majority in the lower House—an amazing shift. In doing so, the Indian people gave their new Government a strong mandate for reform and economic growth. As I understand it, it was to some extent a vote of confidence in Modi as a reformer more than in the BJP as a party. The noble Lord rightly commented that two recent state elections have further strengthened the position of the BJP. I notice that we debate constitutional reform in Britain. The United Kingdom has still an entirely unitary constitution based on parliamentary sovereignty, but it has always been very good at giving states which were formerly in the empire and Commonwealth highly devolved and federal constitutions, India being a good example.

The Indian Prime Minister, Mr Modi, has made a very good start in office. He has made positive moves, already mentioned, to engage the region such as inviting the leaders of India’s neighbours to his inauguration, and his statement to work through consensus in Parliament is equally admirable. His ambitious plans to develop India, through energy for all by 2020, heavy investment in infrastructure and, importantly, improved governance, will all be key in supporting India’s development. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the MPs in the Lok Sabha who have interesting backgrounds. This is not a new problem; it has been there ever since India became independent. We believe that Mr Modi’s plans open up bright new prospects for the relationship between our two countries across the board, including in trade, foreign policy and people-to-people issues. We have made a positive start in engaging the new Indian Government, with the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary all having met Prime Minister Modi since the election and through Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj’s visit to London on 17 October. We have made a total of nine ministerial visits so far, mostly with substantial groups accompanying the Ministers who went. I understand that a tenth will shortly be led by Greg Clark which will concentrate precisely on the areas of research, co-operation and student exchange—I am happy that my wife, as an officer of the British Academy, will be part of that party—talking about the Newton Fund and how we can assist in co-operation between Indian and British universities. We want to build on what we have achieved and our already strong ties with India to bring real warmth to the relationship. We are not letting the grass grow under our feet.

Trade and investment is a priority of the new Indian Government and it is important in driving the growth and development that India wants. India wants to modernise its infrastructure, boost manufacturing and release the potential of young Indians through better education. Prime Minister Modi has also revealed plans to clean up the Ganges, which is of huge significance to the Indian people. By investing in that growth, stabilising prices and developing the infrastructure to improve services and connectivity, he will do much to kick-start the economy across the country after years in which the Indian economy has grown more slowly than its potential.

However, to achieve this, India needs investment. The UK is already the biggest investor among the G20 countries in India, and more Indian investment comes to the UK than to the rest of Europe combined, but there is more that we intend to do. For example, when visiting India in July, the Chancellor announced that the UK will make available £1 billion of export finance to support the development of Indian infrastructure that has a UK element. He also announced, as part of the UK-India Economic and Financial Dialogue, a partnership between India and the City of London to work collaboratively in areas such as the potential to float the rupee in London, and opportunities for further raising of capital. We are roughly on track to achieve the Prime Minister’s target of doubling bilateral trade with India between 2010 and 2015, and we will keep pushing to remove barriers for British companies to trade in India and vice versa, and to ensure that we make the best of the opportunities that are available.

We are also, of course, pressing the Indian Government to complete the agreement made in Bali which will enable us to take the World Trade Organization through to another level of opening up trade. We understand the Indian Government’s concern about food security but we are confident that a compromise can be agreed that will allow the world trade round to go ahead.

An important part of our delivery of and success in achieving our aims with India is the strength of the people-to-people links our two nations have, with our extremely successful Indian diaspora—1.5 million people—who contribute to every aspect of our society and have the potential to be a cornerstone in our bilateral relationship. Last week we saw the Indian Government’s flagship regional diaspora conference, the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas—I hope I pronounced it moderately correctly—take place in London for the first time. We were honoured to be the host city for this event and it demonstrated the power of the people-to-people links. Equally, things such as the Dadabhai Naoroji awards, which celebrate those individuals who have helped strengthen UK-India bonds and which were handed out for the first time last week at the FCO’s Indian diaspora reception, show how much the diaspora can and does contribute.

Those ties will be highlighted during the centenary of the start of World War I. We will be honouring the more than 1 million Indians who served to defend Europe’s freedom, so that their courage and sacrifice are not forgotten. I was very happy to go to the exhibition on the role of Sikhs in World War I at the School of Oriental and African Studies this summer. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Dholakia is involved in preparations in Brighton to commemorate all those Indians who were sent to Brighton as wounded soldiers to recover or, in some cases sadly, to die there of their wounds. I speak as a member of the advisory board on the commemoration of World War I, and we want to ensure that the Indian dimension is very much part of our memorial.

The noble Lord, Lord Paul, suggested that we were being a little ungenerous in asking for the Gandhi memorial to be funded by public subscription. I think it is the case that most of the statues he sees in London have been funded by public subscription. I spoke at a meeting of the Chinese community in London last month to commemorate the role of the Chinese Labour Corps in World War I and to launch the fund that will get a public subscription to pay for a memorial. This is the normal way in which these things happen in London. I look forward very much to seeing the Gandhi memorial, we hope in Parliament Square.

We have not mentioned energy co-operation, although the noble Lord, Lord Bach, mentioned climate change. One of the new Prime Minister’s priorities is indeed to improve India’s energy security. Britain is a world leader in renewable energy and we see that as very much part of the partnership in which mutual interest will enable us to go a great deal further.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke about the treatment of minorities, both Dalits and Muslims. We all recognise that that remains a severe problem in India and that, indeed, some of those problems overlap into the diaspora community in Britain. We—or, at least, non-governmental organisations—are engaged in this. It is very much a deep cultural issue, as of course is the position of women in Indian society, on which we all need to work, and on which the diaspora community in Britain needs to work, to improve that particular aspect of Indian society.

The noble Lord, Lord Paul, also talked about the problems of corruption, which are of course deep-seated in traditional Indian culture, as they were in traditional British culture until a century and a half ago. Again, we look forward to the new Government working on this. The noble Lord also talked about a slow decline in UK-Indian relations. Well, we are now doing our utmost to reverse that and to ensure that we can build a positive new relationship with the new Government.

Finally, there was mention of the relationship with Pakistan, and with other neighbours. We are of course actively concerned about the relationship between India and Pakistan; that, too, is a relationship which overlaps into the United Kingdom. We welcomed the invitation for the Pakistani Prime Minister to attend Mr Modi’s inauguration, and we shall do everything that we can to encourage that relationship to unfreeze, which is certainly what it needs to do.

This has been a very useful debate. I hope that I have made it clear that Her Majesty’s Government see the election of the Modi Government as an opportunity to strengthen relations with India and for India to grow, reform and change more rapidly than in recent years. We look forward to cultivating that relationship over the coming years.

Committee adjourned at 4.42 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 23 October 2014.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Introduction: Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

11:08

The Honourable Caroline Elizabeth Chisholm, having been created Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen, of Owlpen in the County of Gloucestershire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord King of Bridgwater and Baroness Jenkin of Kennington, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Scriven

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

11:14

Paul James Scriven, Esquire, having been created Baron Scriven, of Hunters Bar in the City of Sheffield, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Allan of Hallam, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Royal Assent

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

11:18

The following Measure was given Royal Assent:

Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure.

Cycling: Helmets

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:19

Asked by

[Baroness Sharples]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to legislate that cyclists must wear helmets.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, the Government take cycle safety very seriously. We have no plans to legislate to make cyclists wear cycle helmets. However, we encourage their use by all cyclists, especially children. We believe that this should remain a matter of individual choice rather than imposing additional regulations which would be difficult to enforce.

[Baroness Sharples (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. However, if cyclists wore helmets, would they not be more visible and certainly safer? Can we also persuade them not to ride on pavements? Is my noble friend aware that recently, on a crossing outside the House, I hit a cyclist on the back because he did not stop and his friends behind shouted, “Well done—why didn’t you hit him harder”?

[Lord Popat]

I think we can all agree that my noble friend is a force of nature inside this Chamber and, based on what I have just heard, outside it as well. There is an important point, however. Although the police have a role to play in enforcing the law, we need everyone to play their part to ensure that all road users and pedestrians respect each other. If we had more people with the courage and decency of my noble friend, the world would be a better place.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness. I would not like to meet her when on my bike on a dark night. However, she is absolutely right and so is the Minister. Does he agree that the answer to both encouraging more cycling and making it safer is to give real, regular investment to cycling over the whole country? A sum of £10 per person per year may be a very small proportion of the road budget but there would be more discipline and space and a much better environment to cycle in.

[Lord Popat]

The noble Lord makes an important point and I agree with it. We want to make cycling safe, to encourage more cycling. Last week, a cycling delivery plan was released and was discussed and debated in the other House. It is our ideal aspiration to spend £10. We currently spend £5 per person, compared with £2 in the previous Parliament, so we are continuing to spend more money for safety and more cycling.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, Dr Hugh Jackson, a Newcastle paediatrician, fronted a major national campaign seeking to persuade the Government of the day that children cycling on public roads should be required by law to wear helmets. He produced some alarming statistics about the incidence of head injuries, many of which could have been prevented—and the children spared the results—by wearing helmets. Is it not time to re-examine this whole issue?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, cycling helmets reduce the impact of a collision; they do not prevent collisions. The report mentioned by the noble Lord concluded that cycle helmets would be effective in many accidents but their effectiveness depends on a range of factors such as whether it was a fall or a collision with a vehicle and what object was struck by the road.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, there are very few cyclists, certainly in London, who do not now wear helmets. However, could the Government publish statistics of the number of serious and fatal injuries caused by people not wearing them? On the other hand, will the Minister also bear in mind that if legislation did make it compulsory there would almost certainly be a considerable reduction in the use of Barclays bikes, particularly by tourists, which would be a disadvantage to the general well-being of London?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, the Government do produce figures on people wearing, or not wearing, helmets. About 18% of children do wear helmets. It is therefore important to work to avoid accidents in the first place and make cycling safer through redesigning junctions, increasing awareness, training cyclists and motorists and encouraging cyclists to take simple steps such as wearing high-visibility clothing and helmets.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

The noble Lord will recognise the importance of cycle safety. If we are to encourage people to use bikes more, particularly for commuting into our cities and towns, we have got to make things safer. Yet when it came to the question of resources, raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the Minister evaded the issue, as did his counterpart in the Commons after a major debate two weeks ago. Do the Government not recognise that to make cycling safe, expenditure is necessary? It does not have to be a great deal, but expenditure is necessary and it would behove the Government to respond to this. On a personal note, cycling down the River Lea for seven miles most mornings I always think that the safety device I need is not a helmet but water wings.

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, let me take the question of expenditure first. The previous Government spent £2 per person; currently, we are spending £5; in our eight cycling cities we are spending £10. We have our cycling delivery plan and the final report will be published. It is our aspiration to spend £10, or even more, by 2020-21. We want to see more cyclists on our roads.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we must do more to protect the lives of cyclists but there is a serious point about protecting pedestrians as well. Will my noble friend look at the level of penalties and demand that the police take enforcement action against that small minority of arrogant Lycra louts who sail through red traffic lights as if the law does not apply to them, belt down the pavement and scatter pedestrians, and mow down some people on zebra crossings, including some people in wheelchairs—so I declare a personal interest?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, the enforcement of cycling offences is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. Officers can issue verbal warnings or a fixed penalty—which has increased from £30 to £50—and rogue cyclists on the pavement can be prosecuted. We are doing what we can to carry out the necessary training and awareness programmes to make sure that bad cyclists do not give a bad name to the good cyclists.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, given that winter is approaching quickly, does the Minister agree that, apart from safety helmets, high-visibility jackets and proper lighting are among the most important elements of cycling safety? Having to drive through London in rush hour is a menace for everybody.

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, we are taking action through redesigning junctions, creating awareness and training cyclists—all of which is taking place with Transport for London and the Mayor of London as well.

Employment

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:27

Asked by

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to tackle under-employment and to help those working part-time who want a full-time job.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

The Government’s long-term economic plan is working. A record number of people are in work and the proportion of part-time workers wanting full-time work has fallen for the last 11 months. Under universal credit we are, for the first time, creating clear incentives and supporting claimants to progress in work and increase their earnings.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

I am not sure where the Minister gets his numbers from but recent figures show that there has been rise in the number of people seeking more hours. Could this be due to the low pay that people who are already in work are getting—that they need to work more hours? This is partly due, I should have thought, to the government policy of subsidising low wages through the welfare system. Instead of incentivising these low wages, would it not be better for the Government to encourage businesses to raise their game, and become more productive and efficient? In this way, people can earn more and employers can get more of a return from people’s work.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the simple fact is that the number of people working part-time who want to work full-time has had the largest but one drop over the last 12 months that we have ever seen—down 1.7%. Clearly, one needs an economy recovering. We have had a terrible shock to this economy—it went down 6%. We are now pulling people back and, as the Bank of England Governor said, what will get everyone working to the extent that they want to work will be improving productivity in this economy.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that I have often raised the issue of carers, who are grossly underpaid because they are paid only for the jobs they do—going in for 15 minutes or half an hour—and nothing for travel between jobs. Is he also aware—I have met such cases—that there are people who have worked as carers for all their lives but when their client dies and they go for re-employment, because they have been so loyal to them over many years they are told that they must take voluntary work? What they desperately need is an income to live on and they have to take voluntary work before they will be considered even for a job paid at the very poor rate of something like £2 an hour, which they get because they are considered to be self-employed. Does he not think that that is an abuse of this whole employment system?

[Lord Freud]

We are most concerned that people should be able to work as much as they want to. We are creating a new system to allow that, supporting people as they progress, in universal credit, into full-time work. We have extensive in-work progression trials right round the country, to find ways in which we can most effectively support people to work the amount that they want to and get the earnings that they need.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, in a speech in April this year the Chancellor was explicit in committing the Conservatives to the concept of full employment, and in a contradictory echo of a previous Conservative Chancellor said that unemployment was a price not worth paying. Can the Minister inform me what the Chancellor meant by “full employment”? Did he have a particular equilibrium unemployment target in mind, or was it just an empty rhetorical gesture to fit the occasion?

[Lord Freud]

As the noble Lord knows, that is an extraordinarily complicated economic question. The Chancellor has clarified that the target around full employment is a better employment rate than other countries are seeing. We are currently not far off the full employment rate, at 73%, that we have seen in the past.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, as the unemployment levels fall, the focus naturally shifts towards in-work progression, with people wanting to earn more money and have more hours. Can my noble friend tell me whether we should in fact incentivise the Work Programme so that after someone being 26 weeks in work, when a company gets paid, there should be further incentives to help people earn more money and get more hours, so we can move people into better work in their lifetime?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we now have the real-time information system working, whereby we know what people are paid every month. That gives us a new opportunity with the Work Programme in its next stages to look not just at sustainment in work, which was the key new feature of the original Work Programme, but at progression in work. It will be entirely possible to devise ways to encourage providers to help people make that important progression.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister agrees that many women want to work part-time, because it fits in well with their life plans. Can he reassure me that men have equal chances, in their employment, of getting part-time work? As I understand it, many men are felt to be able to work full-time and therefore not given the other option.

[Lord Freud]

We have one of the most flexible structures of work in Europe. In other countries you see a huge concentration of people working the full number of hours, whereas here there is a much smoother position. We have systems to support people doing partial and full work hours. In fact, in the way in which it is devised, universal credit will make the situation even more flexible in the future.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

Does the Minister recall this week’s worse than anticipated borrowing figures, attributable in large part to worse than anticipated revenues from income tax? Does he recognise and share the view of many independent economists commentating yesterday, who said that this was because we are having a very low-wage recovery? Does he concede the truth of that and understand that on the present basis the recovery is very fragile and will remain so as long as wages are low in so many sectors of the economy?

[Lord Freud]

There are major flows going on in this structure. We have had a very large increase in employment, with 1.7 million more people in the workforce. Clearly, some of those coming in for the first time tend to be at the lower level and then work their way up. In 2012-13 the earnings of those who have stayed in work grew by between 3.7% and 3.9%—far more than the average, which was between 0.7% and 0.9%.

Free Trade Agreement: US and EU

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:35

Asked by

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prospects for the free trade agreement between the United States and the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Livingston of Parkhead) (Con)]

My Lords, we are pushing for a broad agreement that eliminates the vast majority of tariffs and reduces other unnecessary barriers to trade. This will help small businesses in particular and promote growth and jobs. There have been seven rounds of negotiations with good progress, given that it is slightly over a year since the negotiations started. We are aiming for an ambitious agreement in 2015.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be well aware that at the EU Council meeting in June 2013 the French won a signal victory by using their political veto under the cultural exemption to exclude audio-visual services from the negotiating mandate because they considered them a matter of national interest. I should also mention that the Commission was given leave to produce further changes to the negotiating mandate. Do we consider the National Health Service to be a key national interest? If so, have we tried to exclude our health service from the investment provisions? If not, why not?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

The difference between the NHS and audio-visual services is that audio-visual services were included originally, whereas the NHS was always exempted. It is probably best if I quote the EU Trade Commissioner on the matter:

“Public services are always exempted—there is no problem about exemption. The argument is abused in your country for political reasons but it has no grounds”.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that there are a growing number of anti-TTIP campaigns right across Europe and that a record 150,000 responses to the Commission’s consultation were received? Can he tell the House what the Government’s strategy is for dialogue with interest groups, with business and, above all, with citizens to make sure that concerns and worries are founded on fact?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

My noble friend is right: there are a number of concerns about TTIP, some of them genuine but some of them ill conceived. We are engaging with a number of interest groups, particularly NGOs, consumer associations and small businesses. In fact, I have a meeting within the next two weeks with some of the people who were protesting outside BIS’s offices quite recently.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

Will the Minister now manage to put aside any concerns about the malign influence of UKIP on the Government’s policy in relation to the European Union, particularly in the light of the opinion poll in last night’s Evening Standard? That showed that, were there a referendum tomorrow on withdrawal, it would be defeated by 20 percentage points.

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

The UK is a great champion in the EU of free trade and the single market. As Trade Minister, I take this role very seriously. The UK continues, and will continue, to have a lead position in promoting free trade within the EU and from the EU to other countries around the globe.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

Following on from the question of the noble Baroness opposite, to protect human health will the Minister ensure that the major manufacturing companies do not force on members of the EU American standards relating to food quality and chemical residues in food, which are less stringent than those of the European Union?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

The EU and the UK have been very clear: standards will not be reduced as a result of TTIP. EU laws will remain EU laws, and the US negotiators have accepted that fact.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, we on this side support TTIP and are reassured by the answer just given by the Minister on public services. However, for many people the proposed preferential arbitration rules for foreign investors represent all that is perceived to be wrong with international trade deals—that they are too secret, too undemocratic and too skewed to the interests of international capital over the interests of our citizens. Indeed, the ISDS clause has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction with TTIP. Should this issue not be tackled head on by removing the ISDS clause from the deal?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

As was mentioned earlier, the EU is conducting a consultation on ISDS clauses and has received a large number of responses. I think the appropriate question on ISDS clauses is, “Which ISDS clause?”, rather than whether one should have a clause. Noble Lords should understand that, in the UK, we have 94 ISDS clauses that have in total lasted for 2,000 years. The number of cases that the UK has lost during that time is zero. Many of the claims made about ISDS clauses are based on misconceptions. The UK is pushing for is an ISDS clause that rightly balances the interests of people and organisations with the right that big business—businesses of all sizes—has to a stable investment environment. We will continue to push that, as we have recently with an excellent clause in the agreement with Canada.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, if by some mischance Britain were to leave the EU at some future date, would we have to renegotiate all the bilateral agreements the EU now has or may have in the future with third parties?

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead]

That is a hypothetical question. As the Prime Minister has stated very clearly, he will be campaigning to remain in the EU—an EU that will be founded on free trade. Free trade is a very important part of the EU and we will continue to push for that.

Ebola

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:41

Asked by

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential to mobilise NATO resources against the Ebola epidemic.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, NATO has not formally discussed deploying resources against Ebola but is keeping the situation under review. NATO continues to support bilateral contributions by allies and wider international efforts. The UK is focused on working with the UN, the EU and other international partners to mobilise resources against the epidemic in west Africa. The Prime Minister will use this week’s European Council, which begins today, to agree a significant uplift in the efforts of the EU and member states as part of the UN co-ordinated response.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for that reply. I had the privilege two weeks ago of hearing the Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States, Mr Andrew Weber, who is also the chief adviser to the President on the Ebola issue, pointing out that the Ebola incidence was now increasing at a rate where it was doubling every quarter. In that case he said that the absolutely essential element was speed. The only organisation with the speed, the resources and the manpower to act as quickly as may be required is NATO. I therefore ask my noble friend whether the Prime Minister will consider speed as all-important and might therefore reach the conclusion that NATO should be more closely involved.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Speed is certainly important. That is why the United States has taken the lead in Liberia, the United Kingdom in Sierra Leone and France in Guinea. We have lead countries. We are now working with others—the Norwegians are being particularly helpful, for example, as well as the other Nordic states—and discussing within the EU, last weekend and today, how others will feed their efforts and contributions in terms of money and people into what the lead nations are doing.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, makes a very powerful point. Clearly what is needed is urgent work on the assets that NATO might bring to this crisis. My question for the Minister is: if not NATO, what other international body do Her Majesty’s Government believe could do the job?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have already said twice that the United Kingdom Government raised the question at the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union last weekend, and that the Prime Minister will be discussing it with our European partners today and tomorrow. There has been an informal arrangement between NATO and the European Union in recent years that NATO is the security organisation which deals with major security issues and that the European Union is the forum through which we work on humanitarian issues, particularly in Africa. For this, I think the European Union is the right framework—and I hope I do not upset too many noble Lords by saying that.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, is it not a mathematical certainty that insufficient resources are currently being devoted to bringing the outbreak under control?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Noble Lords may be aware that Nigeria and Senegal were last weekend declared free of the virus. It is very encouraging news that part of what helped the Nigerians to get the virus under control was an extremely effective Twitter campaign to inform people about the precautions they needed to take. We ourselves are putting in a great deal of money and personnel—mainly military personnel—and we have offers of additional personnel from countries as far apart as Cuba and the Philippines. We are certainly doing our utmost to get up to speed but, of course, it takes a great deal of effort and, unavoidably, time to cope with something so complex.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, while endorsing the need for speed in the international response and the direct treatment and ending of transmission of the disease, does the Minister agree that the humanitarian consequences of Ebola go far wider than simply the medical problem? The economy is being disrupted; children are being orphaned; crops are not being gathered in; and normal medical services and immunisation programmes are being disrupted. Will the Minister recognise that international development agencies from this country are on the ground, tackling that whole range of humanitarian needs, and will he pay tribute to their courage and commitment?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, a close relative of mine works for Save the Children, which I note will take over the administration of the hospital that the UK Government are currently building in Sierra Leone. We have to understand just how difficult it is to cope in-country with what is going on. Sierra Leone has fewer than 200 doctors. Communications are not easy; there are several languages. We are upping what we do and encouraging others to raise their level of effort. The Germans have just promised to help with medical evacuation, for example, and we very much hope that they, like the Norwegians, will do a great deal more. We are working with others as fast as we can.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister recognises that this is not just a humanitarian crisis. These three countries in west Africa are all fragile states, and Sierra Leone, in particular, is emerging from conflict. It has now had several stable elections, but all of that will be under threat unless we get on top of the health crisis. We must recognise the support that will be needed financially for that country to re-establish the settlement between the population and the Government. Indeed, the last thing we would want is for Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea to go back into conflict, civil war, and so on. The Government need to recognise that it is a security as well as a health issue.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we do recognise that. The last strategic defence and security review in 2010 marked international epidemics as one of the biggest problems that this country faces from elsewhere. We all recognise that the investment that this Government make by providing a large development budget is part of a contribution to our own security as well as the security of those other countries. Perhaps I might say that the pitch that we are currently making to the Germans is that Germany, like Norway, is a country with a fiscal and a trade surplus, so it ought to be able to make a very generous contribution to the broader issue of European security, which is threatened by epidemics spreading from fragile states, particularly in Africa.

NHS: Five Year Forward View

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

11:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to an Urgent Question earlier this morning in another place. The Statement is as follows.

“NHS England, along with other NHS organisations, has today published its independent Five Year Forward View, which sets out its view of how the health service needs to change over the coming years.

It is a report that recognises the real challenges facing the NHS but is essentially positive and optimistic. It says that continuing with a comprehensive tax-funded NHS is intrinsically doable, and that there are,

‘viable options for sustaining and improving the NHS over the next five years’.

The report says that the challenges of an ageing population can be met by a combination of increased real-terms funding, efficiencies and changing the models of care delivered. It also says that,

‘decisions on these options will need to be taken in the context of how the UK economy overall is performing’.

In other words, a strong NHS needs a strong economy.

The report suggests detailed new models of care, putting out-of-hospital services front and centre of the solution, delivered through greater integration between primary, community and specialised tertiary sectors alongside national urgent and emergency networks. These can help reduce demand significantly for hospital services and give older people in particular the personal care that we would all want for our own parents and grandparents. It talks about continued opportunities for efficiency savings driven by innovation and new technology, and suggests that they could be increased above the long-term run rate of efficiency savings in the NHS. It talks about reducing variation in the quality of care in the wake of the tragedy in Mid Staffs and how the new CQC inspection regime is designed to drive up standards across the system. It says that to do this we will need to move to much greater transparency in outcomes across the health and social care system. Finally, it makes important points about better integrating the public health agenda into broader NHS activity, with a particular focus on continued reductions in smoking and obesity rates.

The Government warmly welcome this report as a good blueprint for the direction of travel needed for the NHS. We will be responding to its contents in detail in due course but we think it is an important contribution to the debate. We are proud of how the NHS has coped with the pressures of financial constraint and an ageing population in the last four years, but we also know that to sustain the levels of service people want it needs to face up to change: not structural change, but a change in culture about the way we care for people.

Given that the report has been welcomed by all sides of the House, I also hope that this can be the start of a more measured and intelligent debate about the future of the NHS, where all sides of the House recognise our shared commitment to its future and focus on the best way to achieve the strong and successful NHS the whole country desires”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

11:52

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, noting my health interests, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We warmly welcome the report, Five Year Forward View, particularly as it endorses key elements of Labour’s plans for the National Health Service. However, there are many questions still to be answered, which will unfold over the coming weeks and months and will form the basis of that measured and intelligent debate in this House. The report endorses Labour’s visions for new models of integrated care, including hospitals evolving into integrated and accountable care organisations, with more salaried GPs. Does the Minister accept these proposals, and does he agree that there should be a greater role for health and well-being boards in helping to deliver this strategy? On public health, does the Minister agree with the report that the time has come for radical action on obesity, and does he accept that the voluntary responsibility deal is clearly inadequate? On GP services, does he agree with the report that primary care has been under-resourced and that people are struggling to get appointments? Will he accept the need to stabilise funding of GP budgets and match our plans to recruit 8,000 more GPs? Finally, does he accept that much more urgent action is needed to deliver the commitment on parity of esteem between mental and physical health and that proper integration of those services is particularly important and will ensure better outcomes for all patients?

11:55

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of the report which I am sure is shared by all noble Lords. It is, as the Statement says, a very useful set of conclusions jointly reached by the leaders of our health service and their partners. The noble Lord is right to say that there are common areas of agreement between the Government’s view of how we should move forward in the NHS and the view of the Official Opposition. I refer in particular to the role of integration, not only integration between health and social care, but also between hospital care and out-of-hospital care and between public health and health services. The report endorses the direction of travel that the Government are already taking in initiatives such as the Better Care Fund.

I turn now to the noble Lord’s specific questions. On GPs, we are not of the same mind as regards making GPs salaried employees of the health service. The independent practitioner model has served the country well and we do not think that there is any appetite in the general practitioner community to move in the direction that the party opposite would like. However, I certainly agree that there is a powerful role for health and well-being boards to play, and in many areas they are already doing so by bringing together the key players in a local area to decide on the health priorities of that area and to work out the right strategies to meet them.

On public health, as the Five Year Forward View emphasises, obesity is one of our major public health challenges and will continue to be so. I do not agree that the responsibility deal has been inadequate. It is only a part of a menu of options which the Government have available. We have seen major advances resulting from the responsibility deal and we should not throw those away. It means bringing business along willingly with us: business with its power and reach which goes far beyond that of the Government to influence consumer behaviour.

On GP services, I agree that many GP practices are under strain, but our vision and, I am pleased to say, the vision in this report, really centres around remodelling primary care in the round so that GPs consider themselves part of a wider primary and community care team. Yes, we need more GPs, and we have undertaken to ensure that the NHS has at least 5,000 more by 2020, but more broadly we should look at the multidisciplinary mix of those teams and expand nurse numbers and allied health professional numbers to supplement the work that GPs do.

On parity of esteem, we shall have a useful Oral Question next week which will give us a short opportunity to debate it. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, a lot of work is going on to make parity of esteem a reality, including for the very first time defining waiting times for mental health patients and ensuring that mental and physical health are looked at on a par by both commissioners and providers.

11:58

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, the strategy seems to be very sensible, but I hope that not only the Government but also all the parties will do what the chief executive of the National Health Service said on the radio this morning and recognise that there is no appetite inside the health service for any further top-down reorganisation. Will they also recognise that we need to put much more emphasis on preventing ill health? Pharmacists, who are highly qualified and well trained, should have a much bigger role to play, which would reduce the present burden on general practitioners.

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is absolutely right in what he says. The report lays great emphasis on the prevention agenda, not only through the work done in the public health arena by Public Health England and local authorities, but also through secondary prevention by the NHS itself: preventing the need for people to enter hospital in the first place. I fully agree with my noble friend about the potential role of pharmacists. Actually, that role has been enlarged over the past few years in an encouraging way with such things as medicines use reviews and the Healthy Living Pharmacy agenda. We want to go further and pharmacists are keen that we should do so.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of University College London Partners. This ambitious programme will require very strong leadership. What arrangements are going to be put in place to develop strong clinical leaders across the different sectors and environments of the health delivery system that will be required to ensure that this become reality?

[Earl Howe]

One of the great features of the Government’s reforms is to put clinical leaders in charge of designing the way that care is delivered throughout the country. That point is often overlooked. It is, of course, the quality of that leadership that we should focus on. That quality is variable and why NHS England, Health Education England and partners in the system are looking as carefully as they can at how to improve that quality of leadership. I direct the noble Lord’s attention to certain passages in the Forward View, which talk about the need for all the bodies in the system to work together: NHS England, Monitor, the NHS Trust Development Authority, the Care Quality Commission, Health Education England, NICE, Public Health England—all working together to achieve greater alignment and greater common purpose in the way that these proposals are implemented.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, on the subject of the prevention of obesity, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to introduce a tougher regulatory environment for food companies whose products are damaging the health of many thousands of people in this country?

[Earl Howe]

Many food companies—not all, but many of the larger ones—have already taken steps, for example, to reduce the levels of salt and saturated fat in their products. We need to go further. This has been done by the previous Administration and the current Government on a voluntary basis. We think that that has worked well. Nevertheless, we have never excluded the possibility of regulation, where we think that it is justified. At present, we believe that there is sufficient scope to make progress without regulation, but that is a matter we will keep under review.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, we also welcome the five-year report, particularly because it accepts that the business-as-usual model needs to move on. In particular, we welcome the public health aspects and the fact that strong democratic accountability with councillors and local authorities is providing substantial change in public health. Does the Minister agree with the report that there should be more enhanced powers for local authorities to develop this further? If so, can he guarantee that there will be cross-departmental discussions to make sure that there are more responsibilities, powers and funding?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend has alighted on an area to which the whole Government will have to give very careful thought. It is not simply a matter for my department. This will entail cross-departmental scrutiny and agreement. However, on the strength of the performance of local authorities in grasping the public health agenda, as they have very enthusiastically, I am sure that we should look at that particular proposal very constructively.

[Baroness Hanham (Con)]

My Lords, as chairman of Monitor, which is one of the signatories and contributors to this document, may I ask the Minister to confirm further that the Government will not see any wholesale managerial reorganisation in the health service, which is not what the document is looking for, but that they will see change coming about in the way that services are developed? Will they ensure that services will not all be developed in the same way, but that there will be local elements? Will they also support initiatives to help the organisations make this a realisable objective within five years?

[Earl Howe]

I agree with my noble friend. We neither want nor need further structural reorganisation; but we do need cultural reorganisation. I also agree that a one-size-fits-all model will not work: indeed, the Forward View expressly states that. We need to allow local areas to work through the solutions that are best for them. That can be done on a collaborative basis, with the benefit of health and well-being boards, which are now working so well in many areas.

Business of the House

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

12:04

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan and Lord Monks set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.

Motion agreed.

Construction Industry

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

12:05

Moved by

[Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan]

That this House takes note of the contribution of the construction industry to the United Kingdom economy, with particular reference to housing.

[Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)]

My Lords, in opening the debate, I declare my interests as recorded in the register. I am currently the president of the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group, which is an umbrella organisation for trade associations in the mechanical and engineering sector of the construction industry. As its nominee, I served for two years, from 2010 to 2012, as chairman of the Strategic Forum Construction, which the Government established. That organisation represents second-tier contractors and, in the main, they are micro-businesses employing fewer than 10 people. That business model accounts for more than 95% of the construction industry as a whole. The size of those businesses is critical when we consider that most significant contributor to our national economy. The Chartered Institute of Building estimates that total employment in construction exceeds 2.3 million workers—1.3 million employees and just under 1 million self-employed; 2 million men and almost 300,000 women. Its output exceeds £120 billion a year, and there are about 257,000 firms engaged in the industry, which purchase £170 million-worth of goods, services and materials. Together, they add £85.4 billion GVA to the economy, which is 6.3% of national economic output. When you take account of the multiplier effect, the University of Westminster has suggested that construction as a whole contributes more than 15% of our gross domestic product.

When I was first allocated this debate in July—it had to be set aside for other pressing business—there was a mood of some fragile optimism about an economic recovery. Alongside that was the impact of the coalition’s announcement of help to first-time buyers. The link between an economic upturn and improvements in the state of construction is almost always assumed to be a given. The assumption implies that there is a vast army of businesses, workers and suppliers all ready and willing to start building houses as soon as the public are economically self-confident enough and have access to borrowing through cheap enough mortgages either to buy for the first time or to move up the housing scale to find properties better suited to their needs.

While that emphasis on housebuilding is vital to the sustenance of the construction industry, it is not the only element of it. We need the industry to maintain and expand both our rail and road links. We need the transportation not only of goods but of electricity and gas through the pipes and wires from our generating facilities. No longer do we have to think purely about small power stations or very large ones; we now have a vast array of options, including renewable technologies and the like, all of which have to be accommodated into our power systems.

As well as building new homes, we need to refurbish our existing housing stock to make it more energy efficient and more decently habitable for many of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our country. Moreover, we need to build homes to rent and improve the quality in the private rented sector.

These, then, are the challenges facing the industry in an economy that is slowly and uncertainly coming out of recession. One can see from the latest set of figures that there have been hiccups and there have been drops. When we are coming out of a recession, progress will not necessarily be steady. It is not my job today to derive ill considered glee from the embarrassment of a hiccup in the statistics. We know that the general trends are improving. It is how we can take advantage of that and how we can correct some of the errors of the past that I want to dwell on today.

Certainly, it is the fact that in our industry there are a number of challenges. Housing is a significant one. I should like to look at that later in the context of the Lyons report, which my party published last week. In the days running up to this debate, I received a plethora of helpful briefing documents, too numerous to mention, but all stressing the significance of construction for the economy. It is certainly true that when the economy is doing well, construction is also doing well. We tend to forget that in the last economic boom, in the final years of the Conservative Government and under the Labour Government, precious little attention was given to housing. It was assumed that everything was for the best in all possible worlds. This Panglossian approach has resulted in statistics which, from a Labour man’s point of view, I find extremely embarrassing. That last Labour Government achieved low levels of public housing and low levels of construction across the board. What was clear was that prices for houses that were built were far in advance of wages and other indices in the economy. In the last year before the slump in 2007-08, we had the highest construction figures—figures that are yet to be matched in any year by the present Administration.

It could be said that the present Administration has tried. Indeed, there was no financial announcement that did not have a nod in the direction of construction. There was a bit of help here and a bit of help there; somebody was being assisted. More often than not the money was being recycled and more often than not it was old money, but there was always a token gesture made towards the construction industry. Frankly, however, the dribbling of support, which was the hallmark of successive Governments, has to be done in a more concerted, better thought-out way than we have seen recently.

Certainly, as a consequence of our failure to build sufficient houses, we have seen owner-occupation falling. It is now back to the 1993 figure of 68.3%—so much for the property-owning democracy. We also have an increasing number of people living in the private rented sector. There are many good landlords in the private rented sector who are a credit to the work that they undertake. There are others who are a disgrace. We know this from the big cities, where we do not quite have the Rachmanism of the 1960s but we have unacceptable treatment of tenants, disgraceful housing and an indifference towards the condition of these homes in respect of the refurbishment that they dramatically require.

Equally, it has to be said, in the social housing field we now find that there are probably more lower-carbon and more energy-efficient households being built by social housing organisations than by any other part of the construction industry. Certainly, around Westminster, there are many hundreds of houses that, by and large, start at £1.5 million. That seems to be the lowest price at which you can enter the housing market if you want to buy a new flat within spitting distance of this building. We seem to have a distorted sense of priority. If we have a large service industry in which people are paid low wages and a large part of their outgoings are accounted for by transport costs, they need to be near the people whom they are serving in these industries. We have singularly failed across the country to do much about that.

As I said earlier, the Lyons Housing Review appeared last week and it has had a pretty good press. Your Lordships may say, “Not another report in the year of a general election. Is it just a wish list made up by a party fan club?”, but it is rather more than that. For a start, it is rather longer than the usual slick document from a party publications system. It is 180 pages long and has been written by a group of the most distinguished specialists from the construction and related industries in the UK. This took a long time; it is no back-of-the-envelope job, in any sense of the term. The report makes a series of recommendations, which I will not deal with in detail because there are 180 pages in total. That would be stretching the good will of the House a lot further than I have time for.

The report stresses that local communities should be given the power to build homes that are needed in places where people want to live; that councils should provide a plan for housebuilding in their area and allocate land for development to meet this; that first-time buyers from an area should be given priority access to purchase in the area in which they stay; and that, along with this, there should be powers for local authorities to collaborate in forming the kinds of consortia that were formed for the Olympics, whereby a group of local authorities see a problem jointly and can deal with it in that area. On the one hand, this is obviously an urban problem but it is also an issue for the smaller, rural authorities, which do not always have the resources to marshal their efforts in a coherent and effective way.

The report says that there should also be measures to increase the capacity of the small firms, which I mentioned earlier, to build—to give them the guarantee that they will have the resources to do that and, as a consequence, we should see an increase in competition. It says that there should be a help-to-build scheme to underwrite loans for small builders; fast-track planning for small sites, which they can handle and manage quickly; and financial incentives for local authorities to deliver what may be rather more grandiose garden city and suburb concepts. This is increasingly becoming a consensus view: we need to get out of the big housing estates or large blocks and try to get more attractive forms of housing. These are ambitious proposals, which have been drafted by people who know the industry. They seem confident that if an incoming Government next year were to adapt the programme and the priorities that they suggest, 200,000 houses could be built per annum by 2020.

One of the first challenges would obviously be to get a labour force capable of undertaking that work. In the recession of the 1990s, for every two men who left the industry—by and large, they were men—only one returned when things picked up. The gap was filled by immigrant workers. Now when an economy is booming, people do not mind immigrants or see them as a threat. When wage rates are high, they do not see that as a problem. Unfortunately, the Polish plumbers are unlikely to return because many are now in a country whose economy is equally healthy. They have learnt new tricks for their trade and are able to continue them there, so we will not have them.

We will therefore have to be far more dependent on an apprenticeship scheme, but apprenticeships take four years and, for the first two years, the businesses make very little money from them. In year three they make a bit, and in year four the youngsters are probably getting paid less than they should be. It is a four-year investment for small businesses and they need more assistance with the problems of bureaucracy. I know that there is a trailblazing initiative on the part of the Government, which they might announce today. However, the essence of that trailblazing initiative must be assistance for small businesses to get their act together. The problem, as I understand it, is that this scheme, although ambitious, is woefully underfunded. Perhaps the Minister could comment on this because I have already heard people say that their scheme was rejected on the grounds that it would use too much of the department’s resource.

The industry is not all gloom and doom. There are problems with payment systems. We know that the Government would like to see a 30-day rule implemented. Many departments are doing that. Other agencies of government or the recipients of public funds are not in a position to do it. By the same token, we need better quality training and to get away from the very short term.

I realise that time is at a premium here and one always takes up too much time on other matters, but I want to say that there are opportunities for building information modelling. Computing, which is used in engineering across the country is not being used in construction in anything like the way it could be. There are better systems available: this is not a wholly doom-and-gloom industry. There are a lot of opportunities but if we do not learn the lessons of the past, we will repeat mistakes in the future. We cannot afford to do that. Housing, the roads and the construction of the factories we require are dependent on this industry and I urge the Government and the House to give it the attention it deserves and which it has been denied for too long.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

I remind noble Lords that timing for this debate is really tight and when the clock says seven minutes, that means that your time is over.

12:21

[Lord Selsdon (Con)]

My Lords, I am very honoured to be following the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan. As he knows well, a large part of my family came from Clackmannan before they found that there was more profit to be made internationally, outside the United Kingdom. However, with the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, following me, I feel that I have to be slightly careful.

I have been involved in the construction industry and financing projects for most of my life. When my father died, I found that I did not have enough money to buy a house, so I found an old site and, having worked in the construction industry, I built, or rebuilt, my own house. I have done that throughout my life. When I look at the construction industry in the United Kingdom, having been a director of a quoted company for many years, I find that the biggest problem is finding sites and then helping to finance the owner-occupiers who one hopes will follow.

Construction of houses is, of course, a very difficult and sensitive area and the difficulty of funding is usually considerable. One needs to look at the life cycle of the family—of the couple who borrow money, after they get married, to buy a house, then have children. As the children grow up, they want to have a house themselves. Within the United Kingdom economy the biggest single growth in added value over the last 15 to 20 years has been those who own their own house, which creates a problem. How can those who, in theory, have assets of large value release funds to help their own families and others on the road to owner-occupation?

We can look at the tax situation, but I ask noble Lords to read the very good report prepared by the Library as background to this debate. It strays far beyond this ground, but it is the building of a home for the owner-occupier that becomes important. When you get the problems associated with families, regrettably—the split-up marriages, divorce, all sorts of situations where pressure comes upon people—how can we find a way to release funds, which might be called equity release, for people with property, or to assist them? It is very difficult from the tax point of view. I often felt, historically, that if you took out a mortgage you should take out the biggest mortgage you possibly could and gamble that the value of property would rise. When I bought my first house with a 90% mortgage for £6,300 it started me on that ladder. Is there a way to look at the whole family cycle of father, grandfather, children and others and work out some concessions that Government might make, not least in relation to borrowing? In the early days, historically, if you borrowed money for a particular thing you could often get tax allowances. I wonder whether today, instead of simply looking for increased grants, there might be some formula that would allow some form of tax allowance to take place.

We also have to look at the ageing population. We know that building societies and banks in general are reluctant to extend loans to people once they reach the age of 70 and require them to be repaid, which places a large pressure on the grandfather, as he probably is by then, who is looking to help the family into home ownership over a period of time. One needs to look at the economics and finances—then one finds that these banks often require people at the age of 70 to repay their mortgages, which is a very difficult scenario to solve. People may in general underestimate or overestimate the value of their house just to say how much it has gone up in value. But it is the transfer from the owner-occupier—from the husband and wife to the children and then grandchildren—that needs to be looked at.

These days we also have to look at the whole question, which is raised again and again, of how you release equity from your home if you wish to help to finance your children or grandchildren further down the line. This is something that the Government should look at more closely, and look at what form of benefits and allowances might be made available.

I do not need to say much more on this. I just point out that, in looking at the United Kingdom—and I urge your Lordships to read the report—we find ourselves to be one of the most attractive countries in the world for foreigners to come and work. My Polish plumber has been with me for five or six years and intends to stay. One looks at the immigrant population that comes and works on building sites and elsewhere and one wonders how we can increase the construction of houses for owner-occupation. This is where government can perhaps play a greater role. In a person’s life the highest added value, and their own growth of assets, is almost entirely related not to their savings from work but to the increased value of their property. Then estate duty is brought in later on in life and is payable without allowances according to the number of children or grandchildren who might be able to be accredited.

I suggest that in this area we should look carefully at the financial aspects. I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, or with anything else. We are doing extremely well worldwide in contracting, with £500 million of services and contracting, and we have a great team with new technologies in the construction world. It is a simple matter of asking the Government to put forward some proposals.

12:27

[Lord Prescott (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very important debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord O’Neill on getting it. There is no doubt that there are many things to be said on this subject and that there is insufficient time to go into them all. I want to concentrate my remarks on what is called the affordable home. It is all right talking about raising money in different ways, but what if people cannot afford the price? That is one of the major difficulties, and we have an obligation in housing policy to produce affordable homes. All Governments have failed—and I must put my hand up as a Minister in charge of housing that I was not able to double the housing stock, because that is what we have to do. Largely, it should be done by local authorities, but all Governments have capital controls on local authorities, whatever is happening in the economy, which restricts the building of social housing by local authorities. That needs to change.

The report on housing out this week is very important. It looks at all the blame reasons—that there is not enough land or that people are slow in planning—and gives a reasonable response to them. The reality is that all Governments must have a housing policy. I think that we have to agree—and this is me, talking about agreeing across the Chambers—to find a common housing policy. We can no longer keep arguing about the ideological case of whether it should be public or private; we just need houses for people, whether they are privately owned or to rent or whether they are affordable homes. That is the challenge for us.

The Labour Party asked the Lyons commission to look at those problems, and its recent report is excellent. It starts to rethink the multitudes of housing policy covering the final result. Sir Michael Lyons lays down something for common discussion and, more importantly, a common policy to achieve those aims.

Everyone is agreed on the need to double housing supply—it is really about how you achieve that, and whether the people who want to buy those houses can afford the product. You can produce the houses today at a price that many people cannot afford, and therefore we need to look at affordable housing; I concentrate my remarks on this, in view of the time.

I want to look at possible deals with the volume builders. If you look at the building sector, there are only about seven or eight of them; 14 is the latest figure. They control more than 75% of the market. How they deal with the affordable house programme is absolutely critical. That has usually been done in the past by Section 106 agreements. Local authorities come to an agreement with a builder to build so many social houses in the large building project for which they have asked for planning permission. Increasingly, we have now seen those Section 106 agreements ignored by the building industry. They say that it is not affordable to have subsidised housing in the affordable sense for which they receive a Section 106 subsidy, so they are now leaving them and that is what is causing me concern.

It is an industry that I know from my experience as a Minister is highly conservative; it does not really want to change. I think it is something that has to change. Let me give a couple of examples. Looking at the price argument, I thought, “Why cannot they produce a cheaper house that people can afford?”. I came up with the idea of a £60,000 house: namely, that the Government own the land in a joint ownership with the purchaser and you build a house for £60,000. The building industry told me that it could not be done; I had two or three dinners with them and I could see that it was a waste of time talking to them. I eventually went to an Irish builder, who built it for me for £60,000 and I produced it in Manchester. I then had the land: the importance of land is one of the conditions. If I then owned the land, as I did, and I was prepared to have joint ownership, I could say to the builders, “I want so many of them to be £60,000 houses”, and they could say, “Okay, you are the owner of the land; you lay out that condition; we want the rest of it to make our profits”.

We came to an agreement and I will talk about one of them: Oxley Woods in Milton Keynes. The agreement was to build a £60,000 house. The Taylor Wimpey company, which is not poor, made a lot of great profits, but has now decided that it no longer wants to continue the contract that involves the £60,000 houses. What has it done with the £60,000 houses? It is now selling them for a quarter of a million pounds. The affordable housing is gone, so now what motivates the company? Is it the desire to provide affordable housing or just the aim to make a lot more bloody money? Put your money on it: it is to make money. It is now selling that £60,000 house, which had a government land condition with it; it has thrown out the Section 106 agreement; I protested strongly about that, but that means that we have fewer affordable homes. It ditched the Section 106 agreement, which worked to a certain extent, and the £60,000 house is gone.

That is one way that a number of the companies are going. Some of them are saying, “We will do a deal—not on the 25% or 30% social housing, which was the normal contract; it has to be 10%”. That means you get fewer affordable houses; you are not getting the houses that you want or at the price that people can afford. Let me give you another example. It is right to say that people want to buy their homes. I bought my home; it is an asset; it is a development and the number of houses for ownership increased under the period of Labour. Now it has gone down considerably. I will not get into the party point except to say, since the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, raised this problem, which is facing lots of people in this country, how were my sons and daughters helped to get access to a house? To raise the big mortgage, usually under very tight conditions, the Government brought in a scheme rightfully called Help to Buy. That says, “We will reduce the interest payments; we will make the mortgage easier”. It is a higher-priced house and it is available only to those on quite high household income.

There is another scheme about which I have tried to persuade the Government and it is a Genie product produced by Gentoo, a not-for-profit housing association in the north-east. You can buy a house there by renting. You do not pay a deposit; you do not need a mortgage and you are not affected by high interest rates. A joint household income of £18,000 will enable you to buy the house and it becomes yours in 25 to 30 years. Why do the Government not extend that Help to Buy to non-profit associations that have already built 60 of these houses? They want the private sector to bring the money in. The guarantee from the Government is the way you get the private sector money in, so the Government are right, but they should extend it—not to the high-income people paying £600,000: they should bring it down to the people who want to buy a house but do not have the income, cannot afford the mortgage and the interest rates are too high. Let us look at these kinds of schemes.

What is being produced as the policy today—recommending what you have to do to get 240,000 houses, which is the very least recommended—shows the way. It is a step forward to a common-sense, good policy, meeting the various needs of people for housing, whether private, owned or using community land or social housing. Let us put all that together: all Governments can do it; we have to do it otherwise we will continue to fail and let our people down.

12:34

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, for initiating this very important debate and pay tribute to the widely acknowledged efforts over many years of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, to build affordable homes.

I welcome the debate. The recession led to at least one benefit, particularly for social housing providers, in that construction-related activity became scarcer and, as a consequence, contractors reduced their costs significantly as tendering became increasingly competitive. However, there were serious downsides to the recession, one being that company workforces were reduced. Many small and medium-sized companies went out of business or became smaller and the industry as a whole lost experienced, skilled workers—some 400,000 according to the Construction Industry Training Board—which led to its ability to increase its capacity when an upturn came being seriously diminished. I suggest to the Minister that it would be beneficial to the sector if the Government would look at whether there are any ways to provide a more stable construction sector which is more resilient to upturns and downturns in the economy.

Despite the construction market recovering right across the UK, many social housing providers in particular have faced capacity problems with both labour and materials—for example, a shortage of bricklayers, bricks and roofing materials. As manufacturers of building materials also cut capacity during the recession, the ability to get production up to meet market demand has proved difficult and prices have risen. The labour shortage has been compounded by the lack of apprentices trained in recent years due to the competitive nature of the industry and the lack of incentives to take them on. I see the labour shortage as a problem for the construction industry itself to sort out, not just the Government. It must invest more in training. I welcome a number of the Government’s actions to help expand construction—for example, their Construction 2025 strategy paper, and not least their creation of the Construction Leadership Council, with its emphasis on training, getting sufficient numbers into the sector, reducing costs and delivering buildings more quickly. These are all commendable actions, as is the drive to higher exports to help reduce our trade gap and the use of advanced technologies, particularly in sustainable, low-carbon and green construction.

I have spoken previously in your Lordships’ House on the subject of procurement. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are keeping under careful review the impact of government policies on the SME construction sector. There is a government pledge to award at least 25% of contracts to SME construction firms and the same figure appears in the Lyons report. There are benefits to using small companies: profits accrue locally, training is provided locally and local labour is recruited—there is a local legacy. However, the pre-qualification questionnaire process is still a very time-and resource-intensive process and can prove a big burden for small companies. There are various PQQ schemes and I wonder whether we could look at greater standardisation of that process. I wonder, too, whether the Government are content with the current operation of framework agreements. I understand that they can offer cost savings. The trouble is that SMEs trying to win public sector work can find these agreements a barrier, not least because public sector organisations tend to prefer big firms when assessing firms’ capacity to deliver a contract. Awarding points in a tick-box exercise for the size of a firm’s turnover will always disadvantage smaller companies. Those smaller companies can, of course, be part of the supply chain to a main contractor but quality second-tier firms which are local or regional, but not national, can easily lose out to firms outside the area which accept poorer terms and conditions, poorer payment practices and may have poorer training opportunities in the locality. I agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, about late payment. That is an endemic problem in the industry and the enforcement of payment within 30 days should be made a government priority.

I will refer briefly to the borrowing cap on local councils. I have wanted to see the cap lifted but I hope, at the very least, that the Government can introduce a greater degree of flexibility, set against some clear targets. For example, for many local authorities, maintaining the existing housing stock can require all of their borrowing capacity. Their ability to build new homes is therefore significantly reduced. If the Government were minded to allow local authorities to exceed the cap in certain circumstances, that would increase the amount of construction activity.

There are also issues around planning: we have heard some of them and some are shown in the Lyons report. I hope the Minister will take a look at what is being said. I am now clear that the planning system is holding back some development. It is very important that local councils do not impose unreasonable conditions, and 18 months to get permission through to start on site is simply too long, particularly for social housing.

Will the Minister also look at regional differences in housing market areas? As a mechanism to deliver affordable housing, Section 106 is effective in areas with high land values but less so in areas with low ones. It would make sense to devolve more policy on housing down to the sub-regions of England where measures can be tailored to meet local housing conditions.

Finally, I am a keen advocate of a housing investment bank, as they have in the Netherlands. This could increase the amount available for investment in housing, particularly from pension funds. Together with the possibility of incentives for brownfield development, that would build more houses. The Lyons report is a very valuable report, with an important set of proposals. There is a lot there that I hope the Government will pay very close attention to.

12:42

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pro-development, pro-quality, pro-sustainability and, indeed, pro-countryside. Politically, housing is so unsexy it is rare for the leader of any political party to devote a major speech to the subject. On housebuilding methods, we are miles behind in the use of modern technology. I recall the Minister taking my then boss, my noble friend Lord Prescott, to the Building Research Establishment to see half a dozen modern methods in action. There are plenty to choose from across the housing price range and it was partly out of that process that the £60,000 house appeared. There can be much better quality control in a factory than on a building site although you do, of course, have to be very careful how the assembly takes place.

In 1984-85, the Duke of Edinburgh chaired an inquiry into British housing and I was present at its launch. A calculation was made that, given the existing housing stock, the rate of new building and the rate of demolition, the average home in Britain would have to last 800 years. When Kate Barker produced her report in 2004, the same calculation produced a figure of 1,200 years. I have seen more recent, unofficial, private calculations showing the figure is way above 1,200 years. It is worth pointing out that in EU member states the figures are around 25% to 50% of the UK figure because they invest more in replacement. It is clear that we are handing massive problems to future generations. We have relied for decades on the investment of the Victorians and we are so selfish that we are handing problems into the future. I feel very uneasy about that, from a moral point of view.

I am not in favour of leaving decisions to local communities. That is high-level political cowardice. The situation is so serious that, although we have to be considerate and listen to communities, the state we are in requires high-level decisions and tough central management across the electoral cycles. Local authorities of course have a key, massive strategic role, but they should never have been allowed to be landlords. In short, adult politics is required.

There are always arguments about land—that we are not making more of it. I am not so sure about that. Taking into account the capacity to build upwards and to build on stilts on the flood plains by design, there is extra capacity. It is quite easy. There are parts of the country where people have built on the flood plain because they know that it will flood. Their houses do not get damaged because the flooding has been planned for. The latest figures for England were given in Hansard on 15 July at col. WA 114. Our 10 national parks take up 9% of the land; we have 33 areas of outstanding natural beauty which take up 15% of the land; the green belt occupies 13% of the land; while urban and developed land, including gardens, occupies 9%. That adds up to 46%, leaving 54% of land as undesignated or farmland, and some of that 54% is much more environmentally significant than the green belt. By definition, there is no green belt in the national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty.

A lot of green belt land is rubbish land from an environmental point of view as it is on the urban fringe—which is exactly the area where we should build because it already has the infrastructure for communities in place. We can designate more land for green belt: the previous Labour Government left more green belt land than they inherited because they designated more. We can still prevent linear development—which I am opposed to, as most people are. We can use the green belt to stop those areas joining up. However, we need to grow the existing urban areas. I remember saying as much when I was the shadow, and then the real, Housing Minister. It does not go down very well. You are met with the juvenile comment, “Oh, he wants to concrete over the Downs”. There is enough spare land. As I said, if we increased the percentage of urban developed land from 9% to 11% we could solve all the problems at a stroke, without affecting any of the areas we care about.

It is a great pity that Nick Boles—who was repeating some of my speeches—was moved and replaced by someone who speaks before he reads the facts. The new Minister should be required to read the four pages on the green belt in last Sunday’s Observer, and then to think about the issue, and then to speak. He should even be encouraged to think aloud.

I am not sucking up to my noble friend Lord Prescott but I pay a massive tribute to what he did when I worked with him. I still think that the framework in the 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan which he developed contains much of the answer. Designated growth areas should be sustainable but we should also encourage small developments in villages and hamlets. They should not be massive but they would relieve local pressures across the country.

Last month I was privileged to open six new affordable rent dwellings for Shropshire Housing Group at Onibury, a small parish between Ludlow and Craven Arms. It was a first-class location and demonstrated the high quality that the group has repeated elsewhere. The land for the six dwellings had come from a planning obligation resulting from a larger private development somewhere else. That is a provision which the Government are seeking to abolish as part of the Deregulation Bill. I said to the stakeholders that houses like those six should be among not only the 4,000 houses opened in Britain that week but also the new houses which would be opened in the following week and the week following that. That can be done and is vitally needed.

Of course we need to use planning, but changes are needed. I would move planning policy and operations to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and get it away from the housing and local government department. In the same way, the Deregulation Bill places a growth duty on non-economic regulators. It is perfectly possible to do that, as I know from my time at the Food Standards Agency. A non-economic regulator can still share the growth duty. I would put a growth duty on the planners to grow the housing stock. It can still be done in a democratic way and will cut through some of the many problems that we now have. We have to break the link between planning and the housing and communities local government mafia, and put it into the area where we really will get some growth.

12:48

[Baroness Prosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan for putting this debate on today’s Order Paper. It is both timely and important. I am announcing to the House a small claim to fame. Over 25 years ago, I became the first woman to take a seat on the Construction Industry Training Board. It was a mixed experience, but it gave me a lasting interest in and a respect for the industry, with all its faults and foibles.

My first meeting happened to be the last for the then chairman. To mark his retirement and celebrate his contribution we all repaired to the Connaught Rooms in Holborn for a slap-up lunch. The chairman called order and said, “Welcome, lady and gentlemen”. He then said, “I am happy to say that this is the first and last time I will have to say that”. Needless to say, I did not take the welcome to refer to me. However, I stuck it out and, I hope, went on to make a contribution to the work of the board.

The industry still does not have a good reputation in the equalities arena. While things have moved on since my CITB experience, there remains much room for improvement. In spite of the sterling efforts of Women and Manual Trades and the more recently established Women into Construction Project, women represent only 11% of the construction workforce. Most of them are in office-based jobs, with only 2% working in manual occupations. The Women into Construction Project, entitled Be Onsite, grew out of the work of the Olympics in Stratford and is supported by CITB Construction Skills. Two years of funding will help broker work placements, job opportunities, and training and support for women in the construction and property sectors.

In February this year a cross-party parliamentary inquiry looked into the question of creating construction jobs for young people. It made a number of recommendations, many of which were about better training, but a number of which also addressed the need for improvements in public-sector contracts and procurement arrangements, and improved employment experiences. The preponderance of so-called self-employment is hardly designed to attract the best talent and continues to be a reputational risk for the industry.

There are, however, some very exciting construction projects coming through. The controversial Hinkley Point development, which is likely to go ahead between 2014 and 2023, will provide 25,000 job opportunities over that time, with 5,600 on-site workers at the peak of the construction. The development will involve the investment of over £6 million into West Country training facilities. The nuclear power development in Anglesey will create 6,000 jobs, and in Moorside, adjacent to Sellafield, 5,000 jobs are expected during construction.

To prepare for future nuclear decommissioning in west Cumbria, a new construction skills centre has opened, ready to provide people with the skills needed to deliver a wide variety of construction projects, including public buildings and homes. This is being funded by Nuclear Management Partners to the tune of £4 million. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is putting in £2 million and the local college £1 million. By any standards these are significant sums of money that will provide the industry and the economy with much-needed skills for the future, and will enable the industry to move forward.

It is an accepted view that construction acts as a generator at the heart of the economy, and in no sector is this more true than housing, where the knock-on effect from the supply chain sends positive ripples through the furniture industry, white goods, carpeting and flooring, soft furnishing and transportation. The case for increasing the supply of social housing—in other words, by building more homes—has been well made and is well understood. The economic effects, directly and via the supply chain, are pretty clear.

Savings would also be made via the reduction of housing benefit paid directly into the pockets of private landlords—not to speak of the reduction in misery and anxiety brought about by the uncertain and often shoddy nature of private renting. The Government’s apparent aversion to the building and provision of more social housing cannot be excused by economic arguments, because it just is not so. A perceived aversion to all things public is costing us money, not saving it.

12:54

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who is something of an outsider to this debate, I hesitate to comment but, having listened to it so far, it seems that what is needed is to find a Minister or a Prime Minister who is prepared to stand up and say, “This is vital to the success of our nation. This is vital to our future. We need to address housing supply. We have let it fall for far too long”.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this important debate. I declare an interest as the owner of land with potential for development in London and Nottinghamshire. I am also treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. I rise to speak because, to my mind, this issue has blighted the lives of generations of children and continues to do so. This debate is about the contribution that the construction industry makes to the UK economy, and I should like to highlight how we shoot ourselves in the foot by not meeting the housing needs of our people, particularly our poorest families, pregnant mothers and mothers with infants in the first year or two of their lives.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to a report published just this week. It was commissioned by the Maternity Mental Health Alliance and authored by the LSE, the Centre for Mental Health and one other organisation. It was funded by Comic Relief. The report tells us that we spend about £8 billion each year through failing to meet the needs of, or provide adequate perinatal care for, women who are pregnant or are about to give birth. That is equivalent to about £10,000 for each birth in this country because we do not meet the mental health needs of mothers.

Nearly three-quarters of those costs relate to the adverse impact on children of not meeting those needs. The average cost to society of one case of perinatal depression is around £74,000. Between 10% and 20% of women develop a mental illness during pregnancy or within the first year of having a baby. Suicide is a leading cause of death for women during pregnancy or in the year after birth. Although there are of course many factors in that, one important factor is the poor housing that we allow many of our mothers to live in.

At the launch of the report, Andrea Leadsom MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, spoke about her long desire, gained through working with the Oxford Parent Infant Project, to see that pregnant women and mothers with very young infants have a secure attachment to their child. More recently, with Frank Field MP and two other MPs she set up a parliamentary group to look at children’s first 1,001 days, covering the period from conception through the first two years of life. Graham Allen MP has been a huge champion in recognising the vital importance of nurturing that first bond between mother and child. The right honourable Iain Duncan Smith has also shown great support for this area, as has my noble friend Lord Northbourne. It is vital to the later success of our children that a good, strong bond is built between child and mother at the earliest possible time but, if a mother’s mental health is poor, that bond is thrown into question.

Barnardo’s used to run a project—it no longer has the funding to do so—for mothers in temporary accommodation. Visiting mothers living in temporary accommodation in London, I have had an opportunity to talk to them about the challenges of that experience. What has particularly come out in those conversations is the isolation that they experience because of the shortage of housing. In his opening speech, the noble Lord referred to the importance of proximity to labour, but it is also important to have proximity to one’s family, one’s friends, one’s community and one’s faith group.

I am currently in contact with a mother whose daughter is about to give birth early—she is seven months pregnant. The mother is spending all her time with her daughter, as of course is bound to happen. When I speak to mothers who need to take two buses to get to see their family and friends—because in London they are just scattered around wherever the housing is available—it really brings home to me that we need to think much more carefully about supplying housing so that people can be in the community they need to be in. When I visit parents in Sure Start children’s centres I hear from them how important it has been to have coffee regularly with other parents and to build relationships with other parents. They say how important it has been for their own mental health to break down the isolation they have experienced. More and more we need to be sure that there are communities available, with housing available, to make these things happen.

I have had the privilege of visiting with health visitors in Redbridge in east London and Walthamstow in Waltham Forest. There I saw families—often mothers quite possibly on their own—in private accommodation which was overcrowded and unhygienic, with the walls dripping with damp. One family showed me their basement, which had been flooded for a long while but the landlord had been unprepared to do anything about it.

We cannot afford as a nation to keep on shooting ourselves in the foot by not providing the stable base that families need to make a good and successful start. I really am encouraged by what I have heard in this debate about a growing cross-party consensus that something needs to be done. I hope that we may find a Minister or Prime Minister who is prepared to stand up, to put his head above the parapet and say, “This is an issue we need to address as a nation. It concerns us all. It concerns our children and families. We need to provide adequate homes”. That is what we need to do.

13:01

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, join others in thanking my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan for this debate, and particularly for putting in the element about housing. There is no doubt that our construction industry and some of the major engineering and construction projects going on at the moment in the UK are something to be proud of and deserve a debate in their own right. I declare an interest as a former non-executive director of Taylor Wimpey at the time when the £60,000 house was built.

I think my noble friend Lord Prescott was a bit too mea culpa. Those who worked closely with him while he was Secretary of State covering housing know that he achieved an awful lot. He inherited a social housing stock that had been severely diminished by the sell-off of local authority housing without the requirement to replenish it. He doubled the money we had at the Housing Corporation, where I was chairman. However, the issue of shortage of housing in this country is not new. It has been creeping up on us for decades. Certainly, the recent report from the House of Commons says that if current trends continue—it takes into account government policy—in the next six years the gap between supply of housing and demand will be 1.3 million. That is a very scary figure. We all know the impact of that on house prices—although not all over the country.

A number of reports have been mentioned this morning. I agree with what has been said about the Lyons report but there is another report from Alan Milburn’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, which is interesting to read. It says that home ownership for 25 year-olds has reduced from 45% to 21%. A quarter of adults up to the age of 35 are now having to live with their parents, and in London the average age of a first-time house buyer is over 40. Those are very serious indications for us. It is not good. The social damage to our country’s cohesion, stability, independence and aspiration is enormous.

As I know that a lot of noble Lords will be dealing with those impacts, I will concentrate on the impact on our economy. The Home Builders Federation says that every new house built creates 4.5 jobs—2.3 of them directly. So, for every 100,000 homes we build—and we need 200,000 a year—we create something like 250,000 jobs. National Housing Federation research says that every £1 spent on housing generates £2.40 in the wider economy. The Office for National Statistics says that every job filled creates a gross added value of £44,000 and that building 100,000 houses adds something like £28 billion of growth to our GDP. The facts are absolutely clear. We are losing out not just socially but economically. In September, the CBI in Housing Britain analysed the crisis. It said that businesses were affected by £3.2 billion a year in housing-related costs and £770 million a year in transport-related costs.

I asked myself in preparation for this debate why developments in aviation, transport such as HS2 and Crossrail, and energy are not required to go to local authorities, which are involved in consultation, but are considered part of the national UK infrastructure and have to go to the infrastructure planning committee, yet housing does not. I am not talking about 25 houses here and there. In my humble view, all the proposals that have been made will not solve our housing problem individually. We need a whole panacea of developments. This has to include large housing developments. I know that is unpopular and controversial, but I do not believe that infill housing will respond to the problems we have.

I agreed very much with my noble friend Lord Rooker when he talked about urban expansion. He was absolutely right; we need to look at that. I know the concerns about the design and quality of large infrastructure. I am currently a non-executive director of the regulated board of Places for People, which is a large registered social landlord. We have a development in Milton Keynes that is 10,000 plots. If you went there today, the 10,000 properties have not been built but the roads have, the 10,000 trees are in, a school has been built and another school is due next year. The infrastructure has to be there when the people move in, not after they go and live in those areas.

The Milburn commission also talks about green belt swaps. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in its September report, Property in Politics, recommends a new description—amberfield. This touches on the point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker. The green belt policy legislation is more than 60 years old. We need to return to it. I know that is controversial. It needs political leadership and we are lacking that at the moment. I have always been amazed that we build on school playing fields and get a hoo-hah, yet down the road can be a shut-down pig farm with dreadful land quality that we leave and protect. There is something wrong somewhere in that. The Wolfson economics prize—the second largest economics prize after the Nobel prize—asked this year:

“How would you deliver a new Garden City which is visionary, economically viable, and popular?”.

There were more than 300 ideas. Two of the five judges came from the housing industry—Tony Pidgley from the private sector and David Cowans from Places for People. They said that you cannot do it in one place; it has to be across the board. As well as a social crisis this is an economic crisis that we will have to pick up, and we will rue the day that we lacked leadership in making sure we changed the situation.

13:09

[Lord Macdonald of Tradeston (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan said in opening this splendid and vigorous debate, construction across the UK has a workforce of around 2 million, and a need for a constant supply of new labour with vocational skills and technical expertise to meet the demands of architecture and infrastructure that can be on the frontiers of radical design.

In the UK we are not short of ambitious projects. We on these Benches also welcome the promise of job creation implied by Labour’s commitment in support of the Lyons report target of increasing housebuilding and new homes. However, the urgent question is: how will the industry recruit enough workers, given the widening skills gap? The forecasts are alarming, as my noble friend Lady Prosser said in her excellent contribution.

Earlier this year, a cross-party group of parliamentarians, co-chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and Nick Raynsford MP, published a report, No More Lost Generations—Creating Construction Jobs for Young People, which concluded that the expansion of construction over the next four years would create 180,000 new jobs. It also warned that about 400,000 building workers would retire over the next four years and would have to be replaced. That potential recruitment of almost 600,000 workers on present trends, across the next Parliament, is a huge challenge but also a great opportunity.

Many noble Lords will, I am sure, share my admiration and appreciation of the contribution made by migrant workers to our construction industry, particularly those from central and eastern Europe who are presently concentrated in London and the south-east. However, the years ahead offer a real opportunity to ensure the increased recruitment of young people from the UK. There is support now, across all parties, for more vocational training and for more apprenticeships, as we will no doubt hear in the debate that follows this one.

The annual apprenticeship starts now total just under 500,000 a year overall in the UK. Regrettably, the construction industry’s contribution to that total last year was just 7,300, which was only half the number for 2009. As my noble friend Lord O’Neill said, these are thorough four-year apprenticeships, and very desirable for young people. The Best-Raynsford report, which has the support of the Chartered Institute of Building and the Construction Industry Training Board, also points out that construction employs a smaller proportion of younger people than the UK economy as a whole—only 10% of those in the industry are aged between 19 and 24. The report suggests that the public sector should make more use of the levers available to it through procurement contracts and through planning processes to require training and employment commitment to apprenticeships from employers—a strategy that I trust a Labour Government would support. This route could also be used to explore a move towards greater diversity in gender and ethnicity in construction—a priority, given the very small proportion of young women being recruited.

Perhaps a positive initiative is the setting up of an apprenticeship commission, again with cross-party leadership, under Robert Halfon MP and my noble friend Lord Glasman, with backing from the Construction Industry Training Board, serviced by the think tank Demos. The chief executive of the training board, Adrian Belton, wants to see 120,000 new apprenticeship starts over the coming five years. That would be an average of 24,000 starts a year, which is certainly an improvement on the current 7,000 a year. The recently published review of innovation and industry strategy by my noble friend Lord Adonis, Mending the Fractured Economy, recommends devolving £6 billion from Whitehall, partly to strengthen local enterprise partnerships and increase investment in local housing, transport and adult skills.

Commitment to the key policies in the Adonis review will no doubt feature in the manifesto of the Labour Party next year, and I hope that it will then be implemented to boost construction of housebuilding and infrastructure, and to offer apprenticeships to the many thousands more young people whom the industry should be aspiring to employ and train. Will the Minister please update the House on what progress the Government believe they are making to address the growing skills gap through recruitment and training and the provision of apprenticeships?

13:14

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in several housebuilding projects: in Bicester, in Scotland and in Sussex. The scheme in Bicester is for 2,600 houses, and because it was not controversial, it took only 10 years to get through planning and cost only £4 million in professional fees.

I welcome this debate, as building more housing will probably do more than anything else to help poor people. Relaxing planning laws is the key to unlocking real growth in housebuilding. When I was a building contractor some time ago, I used to argue that the best thing for expansion is contracting. Some very good work has been done by the Government in this area. The National Planning Policy Framework has simplified planning policy down from 1,500 pages to fewer than 50 pages. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, who I know worked extremely hard for many months to get this done. The new practice guidance has consolidated 7,000 pages of guidance into simple guidance available online.

Simplification is always welcome, but at present we still have planning laws that are too restrictive. Of course, the resulting lack of housing supply raises the cost of rents and mortgages. It costs taxpayers dear, too. In 2013, the Government spent around £24 billion on housing benefit—almost double the sum paid out 10 years earlier. By limiting the supply of new homes and subsidising rents through housing benefit, the only people who benefit are landlords and homeowners who are looking to sell—not to mention the civil servants who administer it. It is those on lower incomes who lose out. So if we were to relax the most restrictive planning laws, we would see construction companies build houses where people actually want and need them. This would cut housing costs, which make up a quarter of outgoings for those on the lowest incomes.

There is evidence from overseas that restrictive planning increases poverty as well. The US Census Bureau has produced state-by-state estimates of poverty, which account for various types of benefit programmes and cost of living differences. Once we adjust for a range of variables, states such as Texas, with fewer restrictions on housebuilding, have a lower rate of poverty than those such as California that have restrictive housebuilding laws.

Housing is simply too expensive. A recent report showed that the ratio of median house prices to median incomes is lower in Washington DC and Chicago than it is in Swansea and Stoke-on-Trent. Perhaps we have the previous Government to thank for that. Between 1997 and 2010 the ratio of median house prices to median incomes rose from 3.5 to 7. Since 2010, the ratio has gone down, but by only a little, to 6.72. So relaxing planning and encouraging more housebuilding could therefore lower house prices and rents directly. This, of course, would be a huge boost to the construction industry, too, which is a sector that did not pick up nearly as quickly as others through the recovery.

There are reasons to be positive; 480,000 new homes have been built since April 2010. Equally impressive is the fact that the Government have helped to get construction on sites restarted where it had previously stalled, which has led to more than 80,000 new homes. Lots of work is being done to improve our infrastructure, too, which will be a shot in the arm for the construction industry. The Government have set out plans to improve roads, energy infrastructure and more to provide certainty for investors and businesses in the supply chain. That is to be welcomed. But in the housing sector there are still a few things to improve. The reason for localism is for people to have a say in where houses are built—but it is being misused by people to decide whether houses are built.

For most people, the investment in their house is by far the biggest in their life. They feel, therefore, that the creation of new houses must reduce the price of their biggest investment. If I live next door to an open field, I have a great view that I do not own. If the owner of the field applies for planning permission to fill it with houses, I will object because that proposal will reduce the value of my house and remove my calm and peaceful view. There should be some way in which negotiations can take place between the field owner and his next door neighbour to encourage agreement. Unfortunately, however, the Government’s planning laws take so much benefit for the state that that never gets done.

The planning system is a yes/no structure. One can effectively either object to a planning application, or stay silent. The truth is that change is not a black and white decision. There should be ways in which neighbours could say that they accepted a proposal, provided they had some specific benefit from it. Not a benefit to their local council, which they do not feel part of, but to them personally.

The new homes bonus is an extra payment introduced to encourage local authorities to give planning permission for new houses. Like any bonus, it is supposed to change short-term behaviour; but I am not sure that it has worked well. Perhaps the reason is that it is paid to a council over a period of six years, rather than all at once. The department has a bonus scheme for high-performing civil servants, which is absolutely right. Can the Minister tell me whether any bonus paid to civil servants has been paid in the same way as the new homes bonus—that is, over six years?

13:20

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan on securing this debate. I share his interest in the construction industry and want it to be safer and even more successful. Noble Lords may know that I produced a report for the DWP outlining the underlying causes of fatal accidents in construction, entitled One Death is Too Many. I met 70 organisations in preparation and that gave me an insight into the construction industry as a whole.

The UK construction industry deserves credit for being a world leader for professional services and innovation. The proportion of employees in construction with a degree or equivalent qualification has almost doubled in 10 years, albeit from a very low base. Yet the industry has long-standing issues, such as skill shortages, image and lack of government focus, which stubbornly remain over decades.

I believe that government focus on the construction industry is dissipated and should be improved. I accept that it is not possible to have one government department. Construction covers 10 government departments with a strong policy interest as client, regulator and provider of funding. However, a political overview is essential and has been lacking. At the very least, there should be a full-time Construction Minister in government and firm promises in manifestos, which my party pledges.

When the Government, the industry and trade unions work together—for example, on the Olympic Games—it shows what can be achieved. London 2012 was the first modern Olympic Games without a construction fatality, delivered on time and within budget. That did not just happen: it was the result of years of pre-planning and co-operation, led by the then Labour Government and continued into implementation by the coalition Government. If only housebuilding could be given the same treatment. Regrettably, the subject has not been an election priority for a very long time and that represents staggering public policy failure over decades.

Government grants to Britain’s housing associations were cut by the Chancellor, which was a disgrace. Council house building has ground to a halt and even the phrase “affordable housing” has taken on a new meaning, in that it is not actually affordable to most people. If the next Government were to take housing by the scruff of the neck I am sure that the construction industry would play its part. However, the industry is not a social worker and it will not solve a political crisis. As the Lyons housing review stated:

“House builders’ shareholders’ interests are in whether their firms meet announced targets for sales and return on capital rather than on the number of homes built”.

Therefore the Government must take a lead if we are to make progress.

Lyons pointed to the increased concentration in construction of housebuilding by the larger companies and the dramatic decrease in the number of small companies being involved in it, because of their inability to access funding from banks and their vulnerability to being at the end of the supply chain. While SME builders may never regain their former volume of building, they are important because they will develop sites that the larger companies will not touch. One way of avoiding the inevitable decline of SMEs in construction would be to deal with the issue of cash retention. That is a 19th-century practice that occurs only in the construction industry. It is a bad practice: it is estimated that over £3 billion of cash retention, funded by small business, is outstanding. If I had time I would say more about that.

Lyons called for the Government to provide confidence that in future fluctuations in the economic cycle those involved in volume housebuilding should be given greater certainty. The Labour Party proposes a help-to-build scheme that would allow SME housebuilders to access lower-cost banking, supported by an Exchequer guarantee, subject to careful oversight. That would be a great step forward.

Although the construction industry prides itself on its flexibility, quite rightly, that does not work when it comes to skills training. The majority of the workforce—approximately 55%—has skills below NVQ level 2 or equivalent, and approximately 11% hold low or no qualifications. Countless reports, going back to those of Sir Michael Latham and Sir John Egan, have referred to the industry’s poor image and the reluctance of parents to encourage entry to it for their children. The financial structure of the training industry means that it is easier to poach from other companies than to train people itself. There is a desperate shortage of some skills, including project management and brick-laying. Construction apprenticeships, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston has already said, are now below 8,000, which is a disgrace.

One of the major drawbacks to improving skills training is the extent of self-employment and bogus self-employment in the industry. The self-employed do not take up apprenticeships or go on safety training courses. It is assumed that they are fully fledged in their skills before going on site, which is a nonsense in many areas.

There are some success stories, of course, which we must build on—including those of the university technology colleges, about which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, will be speaking in a later debate today. There is the example of the Labour-run London Borough of Haringey’s Building Lives programme, which works in partnership with local builders to launch a new academy. Apprenticeships have been awarded to 50 local people, who will learn their trades working on homes for Haringey’s social housing sites. Mulalley construction company and Keepmoat homes have both promised to take on 25 apprentices each, ensuring that the skills they learn can be transferred to jobs.

Finally, it is an enormous job, but we will be failing our young people if we do not provide them with homes, jobs and proper training. If the political will is there, we can succeed.

13:28

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

My Lords, this welcome debate, secured by my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, is about the future of the UK construction industry to the economy. I am an honorary fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers and director of a small—perhaps not micro—consultancy. I have been engaged in research on building construction since the 1960s, when civil engineers realised, following the famous collapse of three cooling towers during a tea break on a construction site in Yorkshire, that new designs were needed. I remember clambering along the edges of a tall skyscraper to study the wobbling of the tubes, because a few months later the Queen was going to open that building.

In fact, UK technology has played a leading role in the construction of many advanced buildings around the world. I would mention some of the bridges in Hong Kong and, whatever one might think of the aesthetics, the skyscrapers of London. These construction projects have certainly contributed to the economy and have created jobs in the capital. Basic research in the UK has made a contribution, a notable example of which was the invention in the 1960s of the float glass process by Pilkington. That glass is now used in every tall building around the world. Much work has also been done to solve problems with turbulence through the creation of complex flow structures to combat wobbling in the wind or being buffeted in the wake created by wind turbines.

Other countries in Europe have also advanced their building technologies and practices, especially in the areas of thermal comfort, noise and damp, all of which have been mentioned in the debate and which I saw when I visited a German public housing project. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, made the comment that local authorities may not be the best landlords, but the Germans were using the housing association model long before it became prevalent here.

An important role for the construction industry is ensuring adequate flood defences in our cities, but much more funding needs to be provided in this area in order to achieve higher standards. Our Dutch colleagues were not impressed by what they saw in the UK this winter. I hope that the Minister can tell us how EU programmes can benefit UK construction and whether they will be expanded under the next EU programme for research and development, known as Horizon 2020. Some UK building companies have made good use of the open and more or less freely available information produced by the German Fraunhofer Institutes. Such information is no longer available from the Building Research Establishment, which in the view of many UK practitioners has become excessively privatised. Indeed, the micro element of construction which has been a feature of many contributions requires free or cheap advice to enable people to use the technologies. A notable piece in this morning’s newspapers is the fact that Homebase is to close many of its stores because fewer and fewer people either know about or can apply these skills.

The purpose of this debate is to look forward. I welcome the Government’s policy document, Construction 2025: Strategy. It points out that there has been a great increase in research and development over the past 10 years, with a deeper commitment on the part of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to the needs of the construction industry, which is very welcome. But the report also emphasises the need to improve the effectiveness of putting UK research into practice. This requires working with big business and of course it is difficult, given that traditionally this is a rather fragmented industry. The chief scientific adviser in BIS, Professor Brian Collins, has commented on the importance of design and systems engineering. However, a contribution from the continent has come in the form of greater use of more advanced building materials, although the UK is also now moving in this direction.

Some of these new technologies are proving very important in the design and construction of green buildings and green cities, a point which has been made by a number of other speakers. One of the nicest examples of a green environment was the building of the Olympic site. Before work began there was a process of detailed planning of exactly how the green areas, water areas and building areas would look and how they would develop over time. It is interesting to note that how a locality is designed will affect the local temperature and humidity, as well as other aspects of comfort. The UK has made considerable advances in these areas. I should say that other cities around the world have encountered big problems in this regard. Heat waves in New York and Paris have led to high mortality rates in some of the less green areas of those cities. The development of cities is important in terms of maintaining health, and it is something that the chief scientific adviser will be aware of. We can expect to see more of these difficulties in the future as we experience longer periods of extreme weather. That will present a great challenge to the construction industry.

One way in which I hope we are contributing towards a reduction in the rate of climate change over the long term is by having a vigorous nuclear power station programme. The Government are to be congratulated on moving forward in this direction. Noble Lords have pointed out that the programme will be a big boost to the construction industry. Other planners and representatives of the construction industry who are considering the future of cities must realise that probably the most environmentally successful cities will not be megacities; rather, they will be cities that have been broken up so that they can incorporate large green areas. The Germans more or less invented this concept and we should look to the continent to see how we can develop it.

13:34

[Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, on securing this timely debate and on his wonderful introduction to the topic. The Chartered Institute of Building believes that by 2022 there will be a shortfall of 1 million homes in the UK. The Liberal Democrats believe that the United Kingdom needs to aim for an ambitious 300,000 new homes per year, a figure supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Westminster policy think tank and trade bodies working in and around housing. As we have heard, we also need the infrastructure to support all these new homes. Roads, drainage, telecoms, power and other requirements such as transport links, schools, shops and doctors’ surgeries for a city the size of Nottingham need to be provided every year for the next seven to 10 years if we are to solve this problem.

The recession had a huge effect on UK construction. The industry is one of the truly labour driven sectors, but it lost some 400,000 skilled personnel after the 2008 crash and will lose another 400,000 through retirement over the next four or five years. This is leading to a critical shortage which some are calling a “skills time bomb”. Construction wages were up by an annual rate of 4% in July. We are returning to the age of the “loadsamoney” plumbers, plasterers and painters that plagued the Thatcher era and are symptomatic of a cost-push inflationary spiral affecting housebuilding costs. While a number of government-funded apprenticeship schemes are in place, they are not enough to meet the labour demand required to build 300,000 new homes per year. I had a conversation recently with Cheltenham’s leading building materials supplier. He told me that he doubted whether we could build the number of homes needed because we are not producing enough bricks. As a result, I tabled a Parliamentary Question—HL 254—and received what I thought was a rather complacent reply from the Minister.

Around 600,000 houses were built in 1952-53 under Harold Macmillan’s tenure as Housing Minister. We need to get back to that level to overcome the housing crisis, particularly the acute shortage of affordable or social housing. To achieve that, we should be repeating the garden city model which has proved so successful in the past. According to the Office for National Statistics, construction output figures in August came in at 3.9% lower than in July this year and 0.3% lower than last year. Private housing dropped by 5.5%, with repair and maintenance also down, although all areas seem to have dipped. There were some screaming headlines about this. We are now in late October and frankly the August figures are ancient history. Construction is a volatile industry which has been on a meteoric trajectory over the past 18 months or so, but those of us who can still remember life before the iPhone and have some experience of recessionary cycles know that there needs to be at least another month or two of figures of decline before we start to worry that a downward trend is emerging.

What is more pertinent is the view from the ground. Construction output is most likely to be negatively affected by the lack of contractors available to build or the number of sub-contractors who are still disappearing due to cash flow issues caused by late payment problems. A survey published by StreetwiseSubbie.com, a lobby group that works on behalf of sub-contractors, is alarming. The report claims that over 90% of specialist contractors are being paid after more than 30 days on publicly funded projects and that 4.7% have had to wait longer than 90 days. Of those surveyed, 84% said that government initiatives such as the Prompt Payment Code, the Construction Act and the Construction Supply Chain Charter had made no difference. Again according to ONS, the highest number of company liquidations is still in the construction sector. In the 12 months ending quarter 3, 2013, the number going out of business was 2,819, adding to the 5,000 firms which had already disappeared between 2010 and 2012, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

It is not good business practice to starve your suppliers of cash. The contractors cannot operate without the sub-contractors working beneath them. This is no longer the 1970s world, where hoarding cash and starving suppliers was regarded as common business practice. We are now supposed to live in a more enlightened working environment, where you partner with suppliers and build a team working towards a common goal. If you do not pay them, they cannot work; if they cannot work, they walk; and if they walk, their suppliers put them on stop. Everyone suffers. This Government and the next must tackle this serious housing shortage through enough skills, enough materials and prompt payment.

13:41

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, I recently had a significant birthday. At the party, I was asked why I joined the Labour Party 60 years ago. I replied that I joined because I saw it as a crusade for equality. Today, nowhere is inequality more visible than in housing. It was perhaps easier to overlook this inequality in more prosperous times, when credit was easier and prices were lower, but rising inequality tells us that it is time for a change. Without change, inequality in housing will cause yet more hardship, and more people’s lives to become precarious and more threadbare.

Some may dismiss this as sour grapes. Like my noble friend Lady Dean, I see it as saving our social fabric. We have to act before this rankles enough to cause yet more social problems. Danny Dorling, in his recent book, tells us that there were four times as many big demonstrations in 2013 as in 2006, mostly inspired by rising inequality.

My noble friend Lord Prescott told us that we all know the issues. We all know the remedy. We all agree on the need for more housing. I put it to the Minister that the same Labour crusade that attracted me 60 years ago must be applied to housing. Proper housing is one of our freedoms and freedom warrants a crusade, instead of the token gestures mentioned by my noble friend who opened the debate, for which I thank him.

How do we do it? We do not need to go back 60 years. We have to go back only to the report published last week by Sir Michael Lyons and his team, to which many noble Lords have referred. That tells us how to do it; we in politics have to provide the crusade. We must see that houses are for living in, not just for buying and selling. We must see that housing land is for building on, not for hoarding or trading. We must see that local families take priority over speculators. We have to balance the economic interests of existing householders and landowners with those of prospective householders and landowners. The crusade to build 200,000 new houses a year must be clearly championed and given clear priority by the Government, as many noble Lords have said.

All this can be signalled, for a start, by raising the status, for instance, of the Secretary of State for Local Government and the Minister for Housing. They must be given a task force to carry out the mission of seeking the necessary powers to designate areas for housing growth and new homes, if necessary; to get over some of the planning problems mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick; to update legislation for compulsory purchase orders; and to give local authorities the power to levy council tax from developers on unbuilt plots.

The Chancellor must support this with the consolidation of housing funding streams as part of economic development devolved to local areas. The Chancellor can use government guarantee schemes, including a help-to-build scheme to support not only the large builders but small local builders, and co-ordinate this with the revolving infrastructure funds.

Local councils and planning authorities have to play their part. They must produce five-year targets based on demand. They should empower the Planning Inspectorate to intervene if a plan is not produced. All this is designed to ensure that, once planning has been agreed, housebuilding will proceed, and there could be penalties if developers do not go ahead. In this way, a community can provide for its future and for that of its residents. More houses will be built, making them more affordable. Planning can include garden cities, which will raise our quality of life. Alongside this, we will have to increase our capacity to build homes, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, emphasised. I agree with him. Not only do we need more small companies building homes, we need to raise the number of skilled people in the industry. Achieving this must also be the responsibility of the task force. Right to buy will have to be revisited so that there will have to be a genuine one-for-one replacement by social landlords. The existing scheme has barely replaced half the homes sold.

My noble friend Lord Rooker spoke about the green belt. Reviewing the green belt legislation has to be part of this. Much green belt land is used for intensive agriculture with little environmental value. Most of the best bits are protected anyway. A crusading Government will grasp the nettle and review the designations.

Hand in hand with more powers will come more openness. Who owns what land? Which developers have taken out options? Developers will make sure that homes are built within a reasonable timescale, because the council tax will become payable anyway. This may mean more regulation. For instance, regulation of crowdfunding of the buy-to-let industry certainly needs a closer look. Indispensable to all this is an informed understanding of what makes homes environmentally suitable while improving the quality of people’s lives. The recent recommendations by Terry Farrell make powerful proposals.

If we are to build 200,000 homes a year and have the benefits of adequate housing in the right places, at affordable prices, to the benefit of our economy, to society and to our quality of life, it can best be achieved in the form of a crusade—a crusade similar to the one that attracted me to the Labour Party 60 years ago.

13:48

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by recognising the efforts of my noble friend Lord O’Neill in securing this important and timely debate. I declare an interest as the recently retired chairman of the Midland Heart housing association.

The three elements of our debate are the construction industry, the UK economy and, of course, housing. Taken together, those elements can build a ladder of opportunity that provides the potential to change people’s lives. However, a robust construction industry and a thriving economy do not automatically transfer to good housing. We need the political will to deliver; in housing, that is what the Government lack. That is why I welcome the Lyons review, which is not only timely but asks the difficult housing questions. The review points to the systemic failure over many years to build the homes that our country needs. It highlights the need to tackle the deep and underlying causes of the crisis. Although it is early days in the debate on the Lyons review, I see it not as a game changer on housing but as a modest start towards change. It will refocus the priority in house construction from the speculative commercial tower blocks in and around our cities to the housing needs of local communities.

I welcome the curbs on development land held as a speculative investment when local people need homes. The message from the next Labour Government must be clear: “You did not make the land, you acquired it. So use it or lose it”. I also welcome the Lyons package in other respects. There is the dimension that I would describe as community involvement: local communities being given the opportunity and power to build homes where people want to live; councils producing a plan for homebuilding; and first-time buyers being given priority rights when new homes are up for sale.

However, today’s debate is also about the contribution of the construction industry. Construction is not just about building houses. The construction industry is literally the burden-bearer of our national infrastructure, including roads, railways, bridges and tunnels, and not forgetting local shops, hospitals and schools.

As we seek to change attitudes and culture in the British economy, we must also examine the methods and behaviour of some of the stakeholders, including employers and, of course, trade unions. The worst example of behaviour that we have experienced in the construction industry is the blacklisting of workers, which was, frankly, not just disgraceful but totally unacceptable—but widespread. That story goes to the core of our political system, involving some of the biggest names in the construction industry, who engaged with and participated in the blacklisting of hundreds of construction workers through the infamous organisation, the Consulting Association. That blacklisting organisation was consulted by some of the biggest names in the industry. The information that it provided to the construction companies resulted individuals being blacklisted and excluded from any chance or opportunity of gainful employment in the industry. Many of the biggest names have since apologised, and some have said that they will compensate the victims, but we all want to know who in those companies felt blacklisting to be an acceptable form of running a business.

Last year, a report on blacklisting in employment was conducted by the Scottish Affairs Committee, who considered how best practice could be taken forward to ensure that blacklisting could not occur in future. It argued that employers who engaged in such corrupt practices should not have the benefit of publicly funded contracts.

In 2010, the blacklisting regulation was introduced by a Labour Government. As a result, a blacklisted person does not have to be an employee of the company, and companies have a responsibility to justify any decision they take not to employ such people. I am sure that construction workers will be mindful of their responsibility to deliver not just for the UK economy but for the thousands seeking homes, the thousands on a waiting list that gets longer, never shorter, a waiting list that ensures that some people at the top of the list have choice; at the bottom of the list, there is no choice. I say that those people will find hope from the Lyons review and will serve the British people by building the homes that people need, because construction workers, by their tradition, are builders, not destroyers. I therefore again congratulate my noble friend on bringing this debate forward.

13:56

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord O’Neill on bringing this debate to the House today. It has been a fascinating debate. I cannot possibly hope to respond to all the various aspects that have been raised. I wish the Minister luck in trying to deal with them.

This debate has exposed an issue that is vital for the economy of the country and the social well-being of our communities. When I listened to my noble friend Lord Prescott talking about what he tried to do, I could not help reflecting that he did not mention refurbishment—if he did, I did not hear him. Of course, we put a lot of capital, time and effort into ensuring that properties that had been neglected for tens of years were brought up to a reasonable standard. It did not solve the problem of ensuring that affordable housing was available not just for those in desperate need but for a wide range of people across the country.

An issue that has been raised that is dear to my heart is the question of skills in the industry. It is one of the key challenges if we are to try to deliver. If we form the next Government, we intend to adopt the recommendations of the Lyons housing review on renewing skills. Once again, we had a good briefing pack from the Library. The comment on people and skills—because of the shortage of time, I shall refer only to a bit of it—states:

“Global and domestic opportunities in construction mean that a skilled and flexible workforce will be vital to the UK construction sector’s future performance and competitiveness. Evidence on qualifications is positive, showing increasing proportions of individuals with higher level qualifications”.

That is the good news.

“However, there has been a substantial fall in apprenticeship completions in construction related industries in the last three years while completions in other sectors have continued to grow”.

That point was made by several contributors to the debate today. My noble friends Lady Dean and Lord Macdonald of Tradeston mentioned the fact that we face not only the low number of completions but the demographic challenge of about 400,000 people retiring. It is a huge challenge to ensure that we get those skills.

There is still a job of work to do in trying to encourage young people to understand that not all of them need to go to university to get a good career and that there is real potential in engineering and construction out there to provide them with valuable careers and a lifetime of valuable work. When I go into schools and speak to 16 year-olds, I see little or no awareness of apprenticeship schemes, and little or no awareness of jobs like engineering and construction. There is a huge job of work to do in convincing not only young people but, I suspect, parents and teachers as well. Teachers are still too focused on thinking that the solution to all our problems is to send all young people to university, regardless of whether it will suit them. That is a key part of solving this problem.

It is perhaps right that there has been such a lot of focus on planning in this debate. I always enjoy hearing my noble friend Lord Rooker remind us in his robust manner about the reality of what we mean by green belt, and about how much of that land probably should not be described as green belt and ought to be available to be built on. Of course we need to set it in the right planning context, but what we have at the moment simply will not enable us to produce the number of houses required.

We face the biggest housing crisis in a generation. Levels of housebuilding have dropped under this Government to the lowest in peacetime since the 1920s. For many years there has been a systematic failure to build the homes that our country needs. We need to tackle the deep and underlying causes of this crisis. We have a housing market that is not working, insufficient land coming forward, a decline in housebuilding capacity and communities feeling that they have no influence over where new homes will go.

Labour has endorsed the comprehensive plans set out today by Sir Michael Lyons’ housing review—an independent review, the first of its kind in a generation. My noble friend Lord Morris called it a modest start. Well, it may be modest, but if we can achieve just some of the recommendations then we will have made real progress. It sets out how Labour will meet its commitment of building 200,000 homes a year by 2020. One noble Lord said that it ought to be 300,000. Well, if we can hit the 200,000 it will be a significant achievement. It sets a course for doubling the number of first time buyers by 2025. We believe that only Labour has a plan to tackle the housing crisis.

Today, Labour is announcing three key policies. These will make sure that local communities have the power to build the homes that are needed in the places that people want to live; that local councils produce a plan for home building in their area and allocate sufficient land for development to meet the needs of people in the area—there are still too many local authorities that have not produced the development plans; and that first-time buyers from the area can get priority access rights when these new homes go on sale. We know that in many cases that just does not happen.

Other major recommendations include powers for groups of local authorities to collaborate and form Olympics-style new homes corporations to build on our designated land at pace. The Olympics was mentioned. It is a good example to quote for a number of reasons. My noble friend Lady Donaghy pointed out how safe a construction site that was, with not even one fatality. One other point about the Olympic site has been mentioned as regards the technology employed, the comprehensive analysis made of the site and the fact that we insisted that apprenticeships ought to be part of that process. Three hundred apprentices were employed. We have been telling the Government again and again, “If you are going to have large public procurement contracts, training and apprenticeships ought to be part of that contract”. I await a positive response on that but I am not holding my breath.

Other recommendations include measures to drive competition in the housebuilding industry and increase capacity, thereby expanding the number of small firms rather than the depletion that we are seeing at the moment. A number of noble Lords mentioned the very real problem of late payment, and I think it was my noble friend Lady Donaghy who reminded us about the unfortunate fact that there are still too many examples of bogus self-employment in the construction industry.

Other recommendations include a help to build scheme to underwrite loans to small builders to get them building again, fast-track planning on small sites and financial incentives to local authorities so that they deliver a programme of new garden cities and garden suburbs to help unlock 500,000 homes.

Those are ambitious targets. My noble friend Lord Haskel talked about a crusade. The word is not a piece of hyperbole—he is right: we need a crusade. We need to do something about the situation where young people are beginning to feel that, no matter how hard they save, no matter how they strive, they will not be able to get a foot on the housing ladder. We have a situation where, as my noble friend Lady Dean reminded us, more and more young people are still living with their parents and their dream of owning a home of their own is fast disappearing.

Building more homes will not simply revive our stagnating construction industry; it will also change the lives of families across the country. At the moment, because of the pressure on housing supply, rents are impossibly high. When you add to this the rising utility bills that households are experiencing, it is easy to see why many across the country are struggling. I shall pick out just one example. The latest figures reveal that the south London borough of Croydon has been worst affected. Croydon has seen the highest increase in working families who are having to claim housing benefit because they cannot afford the higher rents. Before Labour took control of the council in May, the number of claimants had increased from 1,050 to an astonishing 12,500. It is not just a London problem, it is happening across the UK. Take Fareham in the south-east, for example, where the number of working families claiming housing benefit has increased from 113 to 1,111, or Pendle in the north-west, where the number increased from 134 to 1,175. What does the Minister have to say to the 12,500 people in Croydon, and the thousands of other households across the UK, who are being forced to claim housing benefit on top of their wages to pay the rent? Does he really think that this is an economy that is working for everyone?

14:06

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, for initiating this very important and timely debate. I say “timely” because the construction industry is very much at a crossroads. It is recovering from the double-dip recession in 2008 and the infrastructure projects we have in the pipeline will result in growth in this industry over the next five to 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, put it very well: this debate is about the construction industry, the economy and politics.

The construction industry serves very diverse markets. From minor maintenance work on our homes—replacing the washer on a dripping tap, which typically would be covered by a call-out charge of £60 or—to constructing the largest infrastructure project currently under way in Europe. Crossrail is estimated to cost £15 billion. It is not surprising, therefore, that an industry serving such diverse markets should itself be diverse. It is also large. There are 280,000 businesses in the industry, big and small. Construction contracting, services and products contribute more than 6% of GDP and contributed £90 billion in gross value added in 2013. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, there are 3.2 million jobs in construction—about 10% of our total workforce. However, the industry’s importance is greater than these figures. It builds and maintains our places of work, our schools, our hospitals, our economic infrastructure and, of course, our homes. That is why construction is one of the sectors covered by industrial strategy. Whatever the particular market, four factors are essential to the longer-term vitality of the industry.

First, the industry needs a favourable regulatory, fiscal and economic environment where government supports sustainable development through creating the right conditions for business to flourish. Secondly, the industry needs a clear and healthy workload. Thirdly, it needs a strong and resilient supply chain. Fourthly, it must adopt emerging technologies and new processes. I will deal with each of these in turn and finish by saying a little more about housing in particular and construction more generally.

First, on having a favourable fiscal and economic environment, the UK now has the lowest headline corporate tax rate in the G7 and the fourth lowest in the G20. The World Bank rates the UK tax system as the fourth least burdensome in the OECD. Excluding EU regulation, the estimated net cost of regulation to UK business has fallen by £1.5 billion since 2011, so we are making real progress.

Secondly, on having a clear and healthy workload, the construction industry was hard hit by the recession but is now benefiting from the economic recovery. More investment will come forward as confidence in the wider economic recovery grows further. The strength of that recovery is key to the construction industry. While the industry is currently 9% below its pre-recession peak in the first quarter of 2008, which was a historic high point, key construction markets are recovering. Construction output was up by 5.6% in the second quarter of 2014, compared with the second quarter of 2013. This was driven by an 18.6% rise in new private housing and an 8.3% rise in non-housing repair and maintenance.

The forecasts are also positive. The Construction Products Association forecasts a rise in construction output of 4.7% in 2014, and a further 4.8% rise in 2015. The Institution of Civil Engineers report The State of the Nation acknowledges that annual investment in our economic infrastructure is higher on average in this Parliament than in the previous one. However, as that report made clear, the job is not yet done. This is why the Government have committed to long-term funding settlements in key sectors such as roads and flood defences. We have committed to spend more than £70 billion up to 2021 on all forms of transport. Councils are receiving £10 billion for local highway maintenance over this Parliament and the next. We have also introduced the biggest reforms to energy markets since privatisation.

Thirdly, on the need for a strong and resilient supply chain, the Government are working in partnership with the construction industry to tackle key supply-side issues. It is now a little over a year since Construction 2025, our industrial strategy for construction, was launched. That strategy is being taken forward by the Construction Leadership Council co-chaired by Sir David Higgins, the chairman of HS2. The right people with the right skills are essential for a healthy supply chain. It is a fact that during the recession the construction industry lost 360,000 skilled workers, with the training and recruitment of graduates and apprentices also significantly reduced. We are now forecasting more than 14,000 construction apprentice starts this year, the highest for four years. Ideally, as the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald and Lord Young said, we should have a lot more—maybe as many as the 100,000 mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. We saw that report on the lost generation; I think that the Government are looking at that report in addressing the issue of having more apprentices.

My noble friend Lord Deighton, the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, has also recently announced a joint Government, clients and contractors group to work together to produce a skills map for the construction and infrastructure programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, also mentioned the huge number of jobs lost during the recession in the construction industry. Our employer ownership pilots are supporting innovative construction skills programmes such as those for high-integrity welding, site supervision and steel erection at Hinkley Point. The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, spoke about having more women in the construction industry. We recently announced a successor programme, the Employer Ownership Fund. The initial focus here is on engineers, getting more women into the sector and engineering shortages among SMEs. We are supporting employer-led trailblazers to develop and implement new apprenticeship standards. Higher skills are also important so we are setting up national colleges—the high-speed rail college, for instance, which will be established over two sites in Birmingham and Doncaster. The public sector is a significant customer for construction and is giving the industry greater confidence to invest in skills, and new technologies and processes, by setting out a clear view of the forward pipeline of government work.

The fourth item concerns emerging technologies and new processes. The big technology drive for the construction sector is building information modelling, which is about the effective use of modern communication and information technology in construction projects to reduce waste and increase efficiency across the design, construction, commissioning and operation phases of a building or infrastructure asset’s lifetime. As we have seen from Cookham Wood prison, where this BIM drove cost savings of 20%, it is a genuinely transformational approach.

I turn now to the specific question of housing, about which the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, spoke passionately. We swept aside the old regional housing targets imposed by Whitehall, instead bringing radical reform to the planning system, not least through our National Planning Policy Framework. The noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Rooker, emphasised planning in the green belt. Our planning reforms are making a real difference. Permissions for 230,000 new homes were approved by this June, which is 14% higher than in the same period last year. Relaxing planning is the key to unlocking real growth in the housing market.

Starts on new homes in the past year totalled nearly 140,000, which is up by 22% on the previous year and the highest since 2007. This Government are emphasising the use of brownfield land for development. In our National Planning Policy Framework, we ask local authorities to encourage the re-use of brownfield land unless it is of high environmental value. Our new brownfield package, announced in June, could lead to the provision of around 200,000 new homes. Our aim is that by 2020, more than 90% of brownfield land suitable for housing will have planning permissions in place, either in response to planning applications or when granted by local development orders. We are providing £400 million of recoverable investment funding, which will go towards the creation of around 20 new housing zones. Around £200 million of this investment will go to London to create 10 housing zones, with the GLA investing an additional £200 million to create a further 20 zones.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, mentioned garden cities. Alongside our work to support the delivery of large-scale housing developments, we announced the establishment of an Urban Development Corporation to create a garden city of up to 15,000 homes at Ebbsfleet and have made available up to £200 million for infrastructure to support it. In April, we published our prospectus Locally-led Garden Cities, offering a broad support package for which expressions of interest were invited. We recognise that these schemes are complex infrastructure projects which take time to work up. However, positive discussions with a number of localities are ongoing and we expect expressions of interest to be submitted once proposals are fully worked up.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned the importance of more housing in our construction industry. New housing construction orders have more than doubled since 2009. Registrations of new homes across the country are also at their highest since 2007. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, asked for more support for small builders. We are supporting builders through a number of programmes, including Get Britain Building, our Large Sites Infrastructure Fund and the Builders Finance Fund. These schemes ensure that sites are developed by large, medium-sized and small developers. Trailblazers will help small developers to get their act together.

Our housing guarantee schemes are now open for business, supporting up to £10 billion of investment in large-scale private rented projects and additional affordable housing. These debt guarantees use the Government’s fiscal credibility to reduce the cost of lending. We know that the private rented sector is currently dominated by small-scale landlords, with larger landlords owning 10 or more properties accounting for only 1% of the market. We know that if we are to realise our ambitions for the sector we need institutional investment and we are taking bold steps to make this happen.

Following Sir Adrian Montague’s review that looked at how we should encourage institutional investment back into the private rented sector, we have set up an innovative Build to Rent Fund, originally worth £200 million but extended to £1 billion due to the strength of demand. This will finance the construction of large-scale, purpose-built, private sector developments and demonstrate that PRS works as a long-term investment proposition.

The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, spoke about affordable housing. We have introduced a new business model for the funding of affordable housing. The affordable rent maximises private investment, so with the current affordable homes programme, £4.5 billion of government grant levered in £15 billion of private investment. This will have delivered 170,000 affordable homes by March 2015. In this spending round we announced a further £3.3 billion of Government money, which, together with receipts from right-to-buy sales, will help lever in up to £20 billion of private finance on top, providing a further 165,000 homes in the three years to 2018. This will be the fastest rate of affordable housebuilding for at least 20 years.

We are starting to see the benefit of these measures through increased economic activity. This is being driven by local communities as well as businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises. The figures speak for themselves in terms of the increased pace of economic activity in the housing industry. We have seen nearly 480,000 homes built since 2010, including over 200,000 affordable homes. Of course, housing, public and private, accounts for roughly 20% of all construction output and this debate is about the whole construction industry.

The quality of a nation’s economic infrastructure is one of the foundations of its rate of growth and the living standards of its people. That is why we have put long-term investment in roads, railways, energy, telecommunications and flood defences at the heart of our growth plan. We recognise that meeting the UK’s infrastructure ambitions requires a long-term, sustainable plan. That is why we published the first ever national infrastructure plan and have continued to update it. The £380 billion investment in the latest plan includes priority projects and programmes such as the Thames tideway tunnel, the Environment Agency’s flooding and coastal erosion programme, Hinkley Point C and offshore wind, HS2 and Crossrail and—who knows?—HS3.

On roads, we have taken funding decisions that will enable us to build at least 52 major road projects by 2020-21 and add over 750 lane miles of capacity to our busiest motorways and trunk roads. We have extended this approach to social infrastructure. In July 2014 we published a Government construction pipeline of forward work which included £116 billion of opportunities to 2020 and beyond.

We are not complacent. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, spoke very patiently on a subject he knows very well. So did the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, who was very much at the forefront of affordable housing in his time as a Minister. Through our comprehensive programme of reforms and investment we are laying the foundations for a sustained improvement in our housing supply and the wider construction market. Of course, we cannot do this alone—we need the support of communities, investors and industry—but together we can build more homes and a better built environment for generations to come. I thank the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, for initiating this very important debate and I thank all Peers for their contributions. I have not been able to respond to all the issues raised, but I will be happy to write in response to the questions raised.

[Lord Prescott]

So everything is okay, then?

14:26

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in this debate. When I finished speaking, I realised that there were still a lot of things I wanted to say and I was greatly relieved to find that my colleagues filled most of the gaps I had left. I also thank my noble friend Lord Young and I hope that the Minister will get another chance on another day to reply to the debate in a more extensive manner than he was able to do in the 20 minutes he had at his disposal.

Motion agreed.

Young People: Alternatives to University

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

14:27

Moved by

[Lord Monks]

That this House takes note of the case for improved alternatives for young people not attending university.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary Fellow of the City and Guilds of London Institute with a long interest in the subject of apprenticeships that is before us today. With announcements on apprenticeships this week by the Prime Minister and recently by the Leader of the Opposition, apprenticeship is, at least for a brief moment, centre stage. It might even become a sexy political subject; it is well over time that it does so.

I have been involved during my whole career in initiative after initiative. I joined the TUC in 1970 to service the trade union members of industrial training boards and I have watched and been involved with many policy initiatives since to try to improve the position of young people leaving school with few formal educational qualifications and no real future in the academic world. We simply cannot say over that period—I share the sense of failure—that we have been successful. In 1970, 44% of boys leaving school at the minimum age went into apprenticeships. At that time only about 5% of girls went into apprenticeships.

At that time we relied, to some extent, on the levy grant mechanisms of the training boards, with the principle that if an employer trained, he got the money back that he had paid, and some more. If he did not train, he had to contribute to the costs of those who did. That was a Conservative measure, I might add—the Industrial Training Act 1964—but it did not survive. In the 1970s most of the ITBs faded away. Construction, as we have just heard, still survives and there are some sector skills councils trying to carry on the sectoral approach to skills.

The challenge was taken up by the Manpower Services Commission, based on the Swedish Labour Market Board—again, the Conservative Party implemented this idea. But at the same time as the commission was getting going, apprenticeships collapsed. Why that happened is worth a study; my own view is that they collapsed because employers decided that they were too expensive—that four years’ apprenticeship was unrealistic. They were aided by the way in which youth culture developed in the 1960s and the 1970s, with young people thinking, “Why am I having four years of relatively low pay when I could get a semi-skilled or even unskilled job that pays much better? I’d like the money now rather than wait for it”. After that, in the early 1980s, many companies that had been exemplary trainers disappeared or became a lot smaller. Only a few sustained apprenticeships.

Despite many initiatives since and despite recent improvements under this Government and the last one, we still compare poorly on apprenticeship recruitment levels with other comparable advanced countries. Only 10% of UK employers currently take on apprentices, compared to three to four times that in Germany, Austria, Sweden and Australia. The most recent growth in the UK has been among older apprentices—at level 2 rather than the level 3 that is the norm in other countries. They tend to be in service sector occupations, where training has tended to be shorter and less stretching than it would be in manufacturing. Even so, only 5% of 16 to 18 year-olds are on apprenticeship programmes at present.

The institutional framework has something to do with our failure. In the past 30 years, there have been 61 Secretaries of State responsible for skills policy. Each has had their own agenda; each has wanted to make their mark on national life. Between them, they have produced 13 major Acts of Parliament and the policy area has been flipped, and sometimes flopped, between different government departments—and sometimes shared across multiple departments over the same period. There has been a succession of major reviews in this area by very good people, including the Dearing, Beaumont, Cassels, Tomlinson, Leitch, Wolf and, now, the Richard reviews.

Qualifications have been subject to bewildering and frequent change, with NVQs, GNVQs, AVCEs, applied GCSEs, diplomas, and now the current range of qualifications that is emerging. If you are still with me after those acronyms—and this is a wonderful area for acronyms, unintelligible to anybody but the most dedicated, never mind young people, their parents, employers and schools—you will probably agree with the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which reported that,

“the system has suffered poor leadership and a string of initiatives that have not been implemented”,

properly. That is putting it politely.

All this tinkering, well exposed in a recent City & Guilds publication, Sense and Instability, has caused confusion and conflict. The battle rages still between the concepts of training young people to work in specific jobs and ensuring that training is broad enough so that occupational choices are not unduly limited.

This should be an area in which it is possible to build a longer-term national programme. That is what they have managed to do in those other northern European countries such as Germany and Austria, where social partnership agreements are the basis of respected and prestigious training. I was very struck once, on a visit to an engineering and technical school in Vienna, to see the 18 year-olds being taught in English. These were people who left school at the minimum age. Similarly, in a Dutch vocational college for catering, hospitality and so on, the requirement at the end of the course was to pass English at native level. That was an eye-opener to me, when I compared it to many places that I had visited in the UK.

There are initiatives. Labour is committed to boosting the number of apprenticeships to match the numbers going to university by 2025, using the Civil Service to start a fast-track scheme to hire non-graduates, forcing public sector contractors to recruit apprentices under new procurement regulations and giving employers more control over training funds. The Prime Minister this week committed to delivering 3 million more apprenticeships by the end of the next Parliament, by cutting unemployment benefits for 18 to 21 year-olds and introducing a youth allowance limited to six months, after which people will have to do an apprenticeship and a traineeship or community work. Housing benefit will be stopped for people of that age, the money saved going towards apprenticeships.

The latest review—the Richard review—focused on improving the quality of apprenticeships and the concept of industry being given greater responsibility for frameworks and standards, with a new emphasis on level 3 apprenticeships, higher expectations in English and maths, although not foreign languages, and grading as a key element of the level that people can attain. In a sense there is plenty going on, and the subject is receiving more political attention than it has done for some time. Additionally, the Government are consulting on channelling funding to employers rather than providers, although that has its own controversies.

Apprenticeship is an area in which trade unions play an important role. As the OECD noted recently, in countries with a long tradition of apprenticeship training, unions are a key player alongside employers and the institutional actors. In the UK, the TUC unionlearn programme continues to support high-quality apprenticeships that pay a decent wage, encourage equality and diversity in the recruitment process and aim to drive up employer demand and promote that in day to day work. The TUC broadly supports the Richard proposals.

We do have to change. Another OECD report made the following statement and, although I have not had a chance to check whether it is true, I put it before the House today. The OECD said:

“England is the only country in the developed world where the generation approaching retirement is more literate and numerate than the youngest adults”.

Skills shortages still exist in many areas where there is high youth unemployment. This mismatch and dysfunction is a feature that many people have tried to tackle and many people have not succeeded in remedying. There is a need for a wake-up, to which I hope that this debate will contribute. This is a plea to all parties to make a big effort to build up a stable national scheme for apprenticeships involving all the different stakeholders. It is not easy—a lot of good people have tried—but it is necessary to try again. We have had many useful initiatives, but few overall convincing plans. We have good apprenticeship schemes and some excellent companies, but not enough. I also like the university technical colleges. I went to a technical school myself, and a bit of the old-time religion might be useful in this area.

It is worth pausing a moment to look at what some other countries are doing. Germany, worried about the attraction of the academic stream to better-off young people, is now trying to make apprenticeships glamorous. For example, there is a programme to recruit apprentices internationally, offering £700 a month net, with free language lessons, relocation costs and paid visits home. That could threaten our fragile system, too, if young people wake up to this new, perhaps more glamorous alternative to traditional apprenticeships and higher education.

I have one final point. There continues to be much self-congratulation in Britain about our so-called flexible labour market, but flexibility too often means that anything goes in the world of work; it often means cheap and low-skilled work by low-productivity workers. The flexible labour market can undermine good training schemes. Let us remember what the Conservative Government of the 1960s tried to tackle—those employers that did not pay for training but poached people from those employers that did pay. We still have that problem, filled at the moment by a massive state subsidy to everybody to keep the numbers going in an upward trajectory.

The professions do not have a flexible labour market. They have regulated entry and training; you cannot just call yourself a doctor or a lawyer. Why is it so different for car mechanics or skilled catering workers? This is a manifestation of the “two nations” again. You should not be able to practise as a skilled worker in a crucial job without proper qualifications. Obviously, you cannot do this overnight—you would need a long transition period—but that should be the direction of travel. That should be a central feature of the next phase of the development of apprenticeships for young people in the UK. Employers who do not train should pay towards the costs of those who do. Noble Lords should remember that that was a Conservative Party principle of the 1960s.

We should aim to have a more settled institutional framework—not treating training as a Whitehall version of “pass the parcel” between departments, some of whom do not really want it—at some stage in the future. A new Department of Employment would be my proposal to deal with this issue and some other aspects of the labour market, too. In these ways, with clear principles and less jargon and acronyms, we can develop an apprenticeship system of which to be proud. It should be one that widely encompasses girls as well as boys and that reaches out to minority communities; one that is a genuinely attractive alternative to the higher education route; and one that raises the nation’s woeful productivity rates, which cause so much concern to so many of us. It should also give young people—regardless of race, ethnic origin or sex—a decent start in an uncertain world of work, and narrow the skills gaps with our North Sea neighbours. We can do better; we must do better.

14:41

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks—a leading member of the trade union movement—for focusing the attention of the House on this grave problem. He highlighted that we are all suffering under the mantra of the education system, and that mantra is three A-levels and a university. That seems to be the only pathway to success. Indeed, the previous Labour Government, as one knows, set that as a target for 50% of young people. I look on this debate as the last funeral rites of that particular policy, because that is not a sensible policy to have.

This policy has led to a great deal of graduate unemployment. If you look at the number of graduates who left in 2012, and ask what they were all doing six months later—how many were working in retail, catering, waiting or bar jobs—you will find that, of those who studied fine arts, 29% were working in those jobs; media studies, 26%; performing arts, 23%; design, 23%; sociology, 22%; law, 19%; and foreign languages, 15%. Only when you come to engineering do you get very low figures of 4% or 5%. There is therefore a huge mismatch between what students are studying and where their jobs are going to be. When you consider that students are going to leave with debts of £40,000, at some stage in the next five or 10 years reality will break in, but it will take a long time to do it.

The biggest problem facing the next Government is going to be filling the skills gap, which in our society is absolutely enormous. The Royal Academy of Engineering has estimated that we will be short of 45,000 STEM graduates a year for the next five or six years. That really is a shatteringly high figure. When it comes to technicians and professionals, the numbers are even larger. British industry is short at the moment of 850,000 of those. At the same time, we have 750,000 youngsters who had 11 years of free education and cannot get a job, so something has to be done. The skills gap can only be filled by a major change in schools, FE colleges and universities. I will deal first with schools.

As a result of recent policy, many schools are now dropping technical subjects below age 16. One of the adverse and painful effects of the Wolf report was to throw out a large number of technical subjects. I agree that some should have been dropped: they were rather casual and not very good; but the baby has gone out with the bath water. A range of students at 16 are now just doing basically academic GCSEs. There is a slight movement towards design and technology, but only a third of GCSE students take that exam, and most of them do the soft options of food and textiles. Only a quarter of that third do resistant materials. These figures there are really very shattering, but when it comes to other technical subjects it is worse: electronic products, only 1.4% of students; and systems and control, 0.6%. We have to give more technical, practical education to pupils below 16. It is a major priority for us.

The reason for that was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Monks. If you compare the countries in Europe, in our country, 30% of students below 18 have some experience of technical education. In Germany it is 60%. In Austria it is 80%; Austria has the lowest level of youth unemployment in Europe and the lowest number of NEETs. It does that by stopping the national curriculum at 14 and having a series of specialist colleges. As the main founder and proponent of the national curriculum, I would now argue for the national curriculum to stop at 14 and for having specialist colleges—something to which more educational specialists are coming to agree, including Michael Wilshaw.

It has to start in schools, and this is one of the reasons why, six years ago, with Ron Dearing, I set up the process of establishing university technical colleges. I was very glad to have had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Monks, on those. These are large colleges with 600 to 800 students operating a working day from 8.30 to 5, with shorter school holidays. Crucially, for two days a week, the students make and do things with their hands and design things. I believe that learning by doing is just as important as studying. We are proud that one of the advantages of these colleges—we have 30 open at the moment, and another 30 will open in the next two years—is that, so far, not one of our students leaving at 16 or 18 has joined the ranks of the unemployed. They have got either a job or an apprenticeship, stayed on at the UTC to do A-levels, gone to another college or gone to university. That is a record that any school in England should be very proud of, and we are actually achieving it.

Alongside UTCs, we now have career colleges, which were announced last year. They deal with the non-STEM subjects. Already, within a year, three of those have been established: one in Liverpool doing catering and hospitality for students 14 to 18; one in Bromley doing catering and hospitality; and one in Oldham doing graphic art and digital technology. I ask the House to consider—and this is not really accepted by the education system so far—that we now have an education system that stretches from age four to 18; if you have that, you first have to say to yourself, “Why have exams at 16?”. There is really no need for GCSEs. The only reason for a 16 year-old exam was that was when you left school. I had to have a thing called a school certificate in 1950, and that proudly showed what I achieved. I showed that to any employer whom I went to talk to. You do not need that now, with education going on to 18. This gives us a chance to resurrect the concept and importance of the 14 to 18 stream in our schools, something that Labour almost grasped last time with the Tomlinson report.

Finally, I turn to apprenticeships. I agree very much with several of the things the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said. There are far too many apprentices between the ages of 20 and 30 at the moment. Apprenticeships are about people from 16 to 18. There, the records are, frankly, not very good. The figures on that are that at 16, there are 20,800 apprentices; it sounds like a lot, does it not? The Whips are waving to me, but if they hang on just a moment, I am about to finish. They should not be anxious; I am only the second person to speak in this debate. I will be quick. The 20,800 figure is only 3.2% of the age group. At 17, the figure is 40,000, only 6% of the age group; at age 18, the figure is 55,000, only 8.4% of the age group. Those numbers are going down. The funding system has to be looked at again to ensure that those numbers go up. Certainly, UTCs can take apprenticeships; they are the only schools in the country that do that: 50 are at the JCB Academy and another college next year is Dartford, which is going to have apprenticeships in January.

This is an important debate. The country has to accept the fact that fundamental changes have to be made in all of this area of education. We are finding that some of the senior students at UTCs at 18, having got places at universities, turn them down. They turn them down to become higher apprentices: to go to work at Rolls-Royce or Network Rail or National Grid or Babcock, where they earn £15,000 a year and immediately do foundation for degrees. After 18 months it is up to the company to decide whether, at the cost of the company, to send them to a university for an honours degree. These are the sorts of careers that we must now be establishing in all our schools.

14:49

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, very much welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for introducing it in the way that he did. He gave a history of our ineptness in managing to keep vocational studies and qualifications firmly on the agenda. If noble Lords want a glimpse of what our economy will look like tomorrow, they need to look at what we are investing in skills today. There is no doubt that we are not getting it right at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned institutional failure. I want to look at the structure of the way that we work because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that it is not just about changing apprenticeships and vocational studies but about looking right across the piece at 11 to 18 provision and beyond and trying to get a different format for providers and qualifications.

I agreed almost entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, with the exception of one of his comments. I think that we were right to expand higher education and to set the 50% target. We are still behind other nations in the number of people who go on to higher education. We went wrong in giving priority—inadvertently, I think—to the 50% target and thereby sending out a message that the other forms of provision did not matter. That was never intended but it was a consequence of establishing that priority. I learnt that in politics you cannot say that you are giving priority to one thing without sending out the message that you are giving no or less priority to another. That situation desperately needs to be remedied, but in a way we are a victim of our history, which has served us very well. We can all think back to higher education, apprenticeships and further education, and semi-skilled and unskilled work. Some people, especially those of us in a particular age range, look back to the 1950s and 1960s, when apprenticeships were stronger, and say, “We got it right then”. In a way we did, for the economy and the society that existed then. However, the economy has changed and the expectations of society and of individuals have also changed. We have carried forward with us all the prejudice and different statuses and values inherent in that system. Despite the fact that the economy and people’s aspirations have changed, we still live in the past and think that higher education is at the top of the pinnacle and the place worth going to and that apprenticeships are for those who have not got into higher education. However, we still think that they have done better than those who end up in semi-skilled and unskilled work. I am convinced that the necessary first step is to break out of that mindset.

The irony is not that we have not changed our view but that all the institutions have changed. Higher education is not like it was in the 1960s. It is broader, includes vocational work and takes in a wider group of people and helps more people to achieve their aspirations. FE has changed. It offers a far broader range of courses and serves far more people. Workplace and employment routes have also changed. We are in the same position—it is almost as though we do not catch up with life. But if noble Lords look at how higher education has changed and at what further education is doing and at the best of our employment routes, they will find the answer and the way forward. It is in that respect that I most agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said. If we address only the bits that do not work, we will constantly be trying to glue them on to the bits that we think do work. The truth is that we have never really looked at that whole package from unskilled work to higher education to see what it means. The world is not made up just of those who go to university and those who get apprenticeships; it is also made up of those who could go to university but choose not to do so and want a different route and those who at 18 or 16 do not yet have the qualifications to get them into an apprenticeship or into university.

If we are to get this right, we need to have a structure that meets the needs of all those groups—that is, from those who leave school because they have learning difficulties and gain the minimal academic qualifications to those who gain three A* at A-level, or whatever else we dream up. People have to have a choice and the route they choose must make sense to them. I think the problem is that we are too in love with universities and we do not love the alternatives quite as much. We see that reflected in the advice that we give to our own children and our friends give to their children. At the end of the day, the big test is whether we say to our bright sons and daughters who could get three A grades at A-level, “Don’t go to university. Take one of these other routes”. I shall not ask noble Lords to put their hands up but I suspect that we are not there yet. I suggest a list of component parts that need to be put in place if we are to get this right: easily understood and trusted qualifications; continuity of qualifications for a framework that does not change every 18 months; well qualified teachers, lecturers and instructors; well equipped and high-quality institutions; good progression and career opportunities; recognition by society of the worth of a course of study; and help and support in the transition from school to work. The only problem is that the only bit of the system that ticks every one of those boxes is higher education. That is why it goes from strength to strength and why I would advise my son or daughter to choose it. It is coherent and we know what it means. The challenge now is to make sure that each of those components and bits of the jigsaw are available for those who are able enough to go to university but choose not to do so, those who want to take an apprenticeship and those who at this stage in their development do not have the skills or qualifications to do it but will want to do so in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, listed the relevant reports. I was the Secretary of State for Education responsible for some parts of those reports. For some reason it is more difficult to be courageous in the skills arena than it is in many other areas of that portfolio. Therefore, I say to anyone who takes forward that agenda, “Be brave, do what you think works. Don’t look back to Tomlinson and say that you wished you had done it 10 years ago. Be consistent and stop changing your mind and link in with schools at the younger end of the age range and with the world of work at the older end”.

14:56

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is one of those odd debates where I suspect that a great deal of agreement is going to break out on the problems that arise and the solutions to them. We shall then take a deep breath and fight savagely over small differences in implementation. However, that seems to be the nature of what we do.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, spoke about a huge array of subjects. I asked the Library what was available in further education and found that there were eight levels with a variety of qualifications. I noticed that the letter “Q” was used very often in further education courses. It probably meant something different on each occasion it was used. Finding your way through this will always be immensely difficult. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, pointed out, higher education is easier to understand as a concept but we are in agreement that we must get slightly more coherent about what we are doing.

Whatever else they have done, apprenticeships have given this sector a publicity boost and a way forward. I do not think that most noble Lords present have had to suffer hearing me go on about my next point, but we managed to make a massive mistake when we brought them in as we effectively excluded anybody with dyslexia or a reading problem from taking them. We had decided in our great wisdom that employers needed employees who had studied English. In the university sector you could get assistive technology that allowed you to get through your course if you had a problem with English. It appeared that employers wanted competence in reading English and could not function without it. This issue turned out to be basically about people refusing to move their ground, not understanding the technology and not responding to change. I do not think that we should have to introduce a Bill into Parliament to make such changes. We should be slightly more flexible and open. The Children and Families Act has resulted in greater emphasis being given to those with special educational needs. However, many problems still remain in this regard because traditionally they have not been seen as something that the higher education sector and other education provision deal with. Although they have a legal duty to do so, they are not very good at it. For instance, they are not required to publish, the way schools are, what they will do so that parents and students can look at it and know what support they will get.

I am dyslexic myself and the British Dyslexia Association, of which I am a vice-president, started out getting a little trickle but is now getting quite a stream of people presenting to their helpline with problems in further education. The Government provide voice-from-text technology that helps read stuff back to you but only 30% of colleges have taken it up. It is an appalling situation that so few colleges are taking up something which is given to them free and allows students to access and get through their courses.

JISC TechDis—he says, staring down and wishing he did not need glasses—is a body which has been looking at technology but is about to be wound up. Technology is a great way forward. I am a convert to it myself and use voice recognition all the time. Technology has a huge advantage: it is cheaper than having support tutors all the time; you can take it away with you and it allows you to be independent afterwards. Why are we not embracing and using it in this field? We are not just teaching people how to use their educational skills—acquiring reading, mathematics and writing—we are giving them skills in how to cope in life. If you have one of these disabilities it is with you for life. You will always learn more slowly and have more problems. If a person can find a way round it and embrace it they can function in the modern world. We can help with this but we do not seem to be embracing it.

I hope the Minister will tell us what will actually happen and what pressure we will place on colleges to make sure they do their best and match the achievements of the schools and higher education, which mainly came through the DSA. Let us see if we have as happy a situation after the reforms and changes to the DSA. I trust we will be talking about that in the future. I hope they can do something here because there are two good examples. At the moment, colleges are just becoming aware that we have this problem. If you have the problem at school you have it there too. I hope they can tell us that they are admitting this, getting involved and taking it on. If they do not, they are guaranteed that a large section of this target area—the group we are trying to skill up—is always going to underachieve and, in a large part, fail. We can avoid a lot of that now by taking on practice which is well established in the rest of the education field. Joined-up government should mean something and not just be a slogan that is brought out to fill the last 30 seconds of any set speech.

15:03

[Lord Bhattacharyya (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Monks on securing this important debate. Along with many noble Lords speaking today, he deserves great credit for this issue having moved to the top of the political agenda. I declare my interest as chairman of Warwick Manufacturing Group at the University of Warwick. A university chair may seem an unusual interest to declare in this debate, but WMG has a strong focus on those who do not traditionally enter higher education. These young people can achieve extraordinary things. I think of Chris Toumazou, who left school at 16 without enough CSEs for sixth-form college, and has since progressed from City and Guilds to Regius professor. Although exceptional, his career demonstrates the transformative potential of technical education. As many noble Lords have said, we in Britain are, sadly, far behind our global rivals in realising this potential.

This is not a new problem. The Feilden and Finniston reports, and many others, said the same thing. Worse, as the Secretary of State, Vince Cable, has acknowledged, over the last 30 years,

“there has been a hollowing out of our post-secondary provision”,

against even that poor record. Too few young people are getting a good technical education and moving from there into well paid work. Today, businesses fear having to use scarce resources to train young workers in everything from basic literacy to technical skills.

Where then will we find the 830,000 engineers who, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, just said, we need to replace retiring technicians? I do not want him to blush but one solution is strengthening technical education before 18. Technical schools were the orphan of Butler’s tripartite system. The university technology colleges set up by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, now give us hope and a chance to rectify that mistake. This autumn, we at WMG opened our first UTC, with a curriculum designed by the university and supported by leading engineering firms such as Jaguar Land Rover. Jaguar Land Rover requires another 20,000 technician workers in the next five years and we cannot find them. We have recently received government permission to open another in Solihull. Businesses support the academy because they can see how it will prepare students for a career. Parents are enthused because they see the quality of education their children get from a top university. I believe resources currently dedicated to free schools should be redirected to extending the UTC programme, as a first step in restoring technical schools in the educational pantheon.

Once these students have reached 18, they need a clear path to a widely recognised vocational status, such as the German technical engineer. Today that path is hard to find. We have seen a 40% decline in the number of people studying for HNCs, HNDs or foundation degrees. I would not mind if this was the result of limits being put on these poor-quality courses. Sadly, we have seen falls in fields such as engineering and computing, precisely where we need growth.

Changing this requires a new approach to student funding in further education. What progress has been made since the Secretary of State agreed to reconsider student funding for quality FE courses? Will the Government commit to expand advanced learning loans to under-25s? To be fair, the Government are keen to support apprenticeships, as the Prime Minister’s announcement of 3 million apprenticeships demonstrates. However, increasing the number of apprenticeships while degrading the brand should not be a consequence of a focus on large numbers. We must prioritise extending the number of higher and advanced apprenticeships for under-25s. The key to achieving this is a greater partnership with small and medium-sized businesses. The Holt review showed that only one in 10 SMEs offers apprenticeships. The proportion offering higher and advanced apprenticeships is even lower.

To offer quality apprenticeships, smaller businesses need support to impart quality skills, with a curriculum that they own and help deliver. We therefore need to improve the skills provision of FE colleges and their reputation with local businesses. This is essential if we are to deliver courses that employers will value, pay for and send their young workers from the factory floor to college to complete.

Achieving this shift is a challenge not only for the Government, but for my own sector. If we want to change vocational learning, companies, FE colleges and universities must work together to give technical education a higher status. At WMG we do this by supporting modular degrees designed with employers, so apprentices can learn at their own pace and companies pay their full university salaries for that to happen. This creates broader access to degree and sub-degree courses. There is huge demand for these programmes, and the potential to expand such courses is massively clear, whether through FE colleges, in workplaces or online colleges.

Personally, I prefer the former two options, as they give a greater prospect of quality control and student interaction. In such a model, further education colleges would benefit from closer integration with universities in providing courses that have high status with students. Employers would welcome universities genuinely interested in helping them give greater opportunity to their workforce. Universities would be foolish to miss this opportunity.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I give the House an opportunity to recognise the enormous contribution he has made to technical education in our country? Through the Warwick Manufacturing Group, he has driven forward the reputation of Warwick University to become one of the best universities in the world. He has also supported, I am glad to say, the university technical college, opened only last month, and he and I will visit it tomorrow. I thank him for his support because Jaguar now wants a second one. His personal contribution in the whole scale of technical education is quite remarkable.

[Lord Bhattacharyya]

I thank the noble Lord very much. Building a better bridge to career success via technical courses is the only realistic prospect for student expansion. That means thinking in radical ways about the nature of vocational provision, from recruitment to integrating work and study.

I started by mentioning Professor Chris Toumazou. If his story tells us anything, it is that in the forgotten half of our young people we will find the talent, ambition and capability to transform our nation. We must not neglect their potential.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate. When the clock hits “6”, it means that the speaking limit has been reached. The consequences of speakers going over their time is simply that the Minister will have significantly less time to reply to the points that they have raised and the questions asked of her.

15:09

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and I echo and endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about my noble friend’s contribution. When he was speaking, I agreed with just about everything he said, although I flinched when he mentioned the word “tripartite”. However, we have moved on sufficiently, especially when we are talking about 14 to 18 year-olds, to talk about technical schools without all the horrors of the old tripartite system. We have added something that is increasingly accepted.

I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Monks on initiating this debate. It is very appropriate that someone with his wealth of experience should be taking a lead on this. However, like him and others who have spoken, I find it somewhat depressing that we have not made more progress on this issue in the past 20 or 30 years. I have been speaking on it, mainly in another place, for a long time and although we think that we are making progress, somehow it does not happen.

It is a long-term and, as we have heard, increasing problem. While, like my noble friend Lady Morris, I am proud of many of the things that the Labour Government achieved, I am sorry that we have not made more headway or had the breakthroughs in these areas that many of us had hoped for. We have seen other countries doing things differently and tried to learn from them and look at what they are doing but have not actually made a breakthrough, despite all the welcome initiatives.

One of the problems, which was touched on earlier, is that we are talking not just about education reforms but cultural problems as well. My noble friend Lord Monks talked about young people in the 1960s thinking that other things were more glamorous than apprenticeships. A lot of people find university life more attractive and grown up, and more of an expression of freedom, than an apprenticeship. I have looked at the proposals that our party has put forward to improve the situation. My noble friend talked about our plans for apprenticeships. We have been talking about the idea of a gold standard, technical baccalaureate for 16 to 19 year-olds and looking at how employers’ accreditation can work, the quality of work placements and how you can build them into a credit system. It is an impressive package.

We have also said—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would be interested in this—that we would like to transform some of the higher-achieving further education colleges into institutes of technical education to underpin the kind of education that so many people want. We also want to see new technical degrees as a pinnacle of vocational education, not just as something that people talk about as second-rate. I am very happy to support all those proposals, as I am sure my noble friends are. However, I have to say that their delivery will be extremely challenging. It is a problem, as my noble friend pointed out, and cultural factors have undermined past attempts to make progress.

That brings me to the core of the problem, which was touched on earlier—the status of different types of education. In the United Kingdom, this is far more of a problem than it is in many competitor countries, and it costs us dearly. There is a clear and unfortunate distinction, a real division of esteem, between university education at the pinnacle and absolutely everything else. That gives a false assumption about the relative importance of different sectors. This is one of the things that is so difficult to counter if we are to make real improvements. Many problems spill over from the whole issue of status. We have a hierarchy in funding as well as in status. If we are going to give young people more choice, we have to find some way in which to break this down. As I say, it may be the university image or peer-group pressure, but there is a certain snobbishness in education that says that universities are okay and everything else is second-rate. It is really difficult to counter this.

I want to mention one factor that could make a difference and help counter this problem of a lack of parity of esteem. We need a unified qualification structure, including a credit accumulation system based on modular courses, as my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya mentioned. That could be done using the best practice of existing qualifications, whether they are academically oriented or geared to vocational skills. It could allow for credits from either sector to contribute towards a final qualification. That could help us to break down the barriers, challenge the difficulties that arise, help to meet the skills gap and give real choice for many individuals. We need individuals to have choice, which is not only in their interests but a really important issue for our whole economy.

15:17

[Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Cambridge University and as an honorary fellow of City and Guilds.

The huge expansion in the university sector is welcome but a downside is that it has not yet led to sufficient differentiation among universities. More relevant to this debate, there is still too sharp a demarcation between universities and other post-18 education. We have become trapped in the mindset that everyone who can get into university should go to one, even though many might do better with some alternative. I would go further and say that there is a fast-diminishing fraction for whom the traditional specialised degree is optimal. That is why some of our brightest young people are being enticed to American universities where disciplinary “stovepipes” are more permeable. More and more jobs require a degree—even an irrelevant degree—as an entry ticket, a fact that suppresses mobility by closing off career options to non-graduates to a greater extent than in the past.

However, despite expanding enrolments, many talented young people who could benefit from universities are still being denied the chance. That is happening to those who have been unlucky in their schooling and do not, by the age of 18, have the attainment level to qualify for the most competitive university courses. Even worse, they generally have no second chance. Options are also foreclosed for those who enter university but drop out before completing three years. They are described as “wastage” and it is hard for them to get back into the system, even if their circumstances change.

How much better it would be if all students could be given credits for what they have achieved, wherever they achieved it. They could then say, as Americans do, that they have had two years of college, and if these credits were recognised by other universities, they could be slotted again into the system. Transferable credits, although advocated for many years, have not caught on. Apart from at the Open University, it is all too rare for students to be admitted into the second or third year of a course on the basis of credits from other universities, HNCs or other FE qualifications that they have obtained earlier.

Our most selective universities should reserve some fraction of their places for those who have earned credits online or from another university, or come via some further education or part-time route. This would enhance fair access, and lead to a more diverse student body at Oxbridge and the rest of the Russell group.

More generally, universities will need to offer more options for students, ranging from part-time courses to intensive ones compressing a degree into two years. Online learning, in which the OU has a world lead, has a growing role. The so-called MOOCs may have been overhyped in the context of traditional undergraduate courses, but they will surely have a role in vocational courses for mature and motivated students. Other UK universities should support the OU by supplying content for such courses on its FutureLearn platform.

Finally, I wish to say a word about pre-18 education. We should keep pushing not only for technical education and apprenticeships, but also for a broader curriculum within the traditional sixth form. Tomlinson was, as we have heard, stymied by the last Labour Government for electoral reasons. Those with long enough memories will recall that the analogous Higginson proposals were killed off by Margaret Thatcher with the mantra about the gold standard of A-levels. The universities, by the way, deserve a lot of blame. They impede attempts to broaden the school curriculum by still favouring applicants who have had a narrow focus when selecting their competitive courses.

When the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee reported on STEM education, we deplored the fact that only 10% study any maths beyond the age of 16. We do not say that they should all do A-level maths, but an appropriate curriculum could be devised for them. There is clearly an urgent need for greater numeracy in almost all occupations and indeed for all citizens.

Of course there will be even more demand for lifelong learning. Books such as The Second Machine Age and Martin Wolf’s FT articles remind us of how the advance of machines and robotic techniques will replace workers in manufacturing. But the jobs most vulnerable to machines are not just blue-collar occupations. For instance, lawyers are vulnerable. It may prove far easier to automate much of their routine work, such as conveyancing, than the work of plumbers or skilled carpenters, teaching assistants and carers. They are the people whom we need keep training.

Be that as it may, the notoriously conservative education sector surely needs greater flexibility if it is to meet the changing pressures that society will place on it. That is why we should welcome this debate.

15:23

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Monks on the grounds of my being an early school leaver at 15 years of age, who started off in the vocational line, and also subsequently as a deputy head teacher responsible for what we damagingly refer to as “Christmas leavers”. These were young people who were in school but were not going to university, damaging their self-esteem in the process. Compared with their contemporaries in full-time higher education, these young people in the vocational scheme had a lack of structured support and pastoral care. Consequently, the challenges facing them were considerable. They faced these challenges largely alone. The best advice matching their skills and abilities was absent.

Such individuals—and the poorer ones in higher education—are still coming off worst in Scotland. A recent study by Edinburgh University’s Centre for Research in Education, Inclusion and Diversity concluded that only students from relatively high-income homes enjoy consistent, superior benefits from the Scottish education system. It has seen a transfer from low-income to high-income households. It adds that the Scottish system of higher education does not have the egalitarian, progressive effects that are commonly claimed for it.

It is important to debunk these notions. The bias against poorer individuals and those not in higher education is even more skewed. If there is an opportune time to reappraise this bias it is now. Youth unemployment in the country is greater than 17%; there are almost 900,000 young people still not in work.

The age of austerity is giving way to the age of secular stagnation. The characteristics of this are high unemployment, increasing poverty, wage stagnation and debt burdens. As we have seen this week with this Government, debt burdens do not decrease. The buzzword in the markets, the IMF, the World Bank and other global institutions is “investment”. We need an economic system that offers hope, not despair, and one that serves the interests of everyone.

We have cheated our children through lack of public investment and a failure to provide jobs. The policy for young people has failed. My noble friend Lord Monks referred to the document, Sense and Instability, produced by the City and Guilds. That looked at the record for the past 30 years. He quoted a number of points, not least the 61 Secretaries of State. The policy has been flipped between departments or shared with multiple departments 10 times since 1980.

Given this catalogue of failure, we can conclude only that a single youth policy agenda across government departments is necessary. Devolution to local level, where the needs fit the training, is very important, because of the huge gap in skills. That way we could encourage diverse, high-quality routes into work. Is it not time to commit to a youth guarantee to fill that skills gap—a guarantee that gives high-quality training placement or a paid job? My noble friend Lady Taylor said that such a youth guarantee should establish parity of esteem between vocational education and the academic route.

We must recognise that the UK economic has been damaged since the financial crisis in 2008. The Institute for Public Policy Research concluded recently that full economic recovery will not solve the youth unemployment problem. The link between youth unemployment and economic growth, between youth unemployment and GDP, is broken—not least in the striking mismatch between what people are training for and the types of job available.

Without radical change by the Government focusing exclusively on a coherent youth policy and a decentralisation of the responsibility for skills development to local level, where the needs of availability of young people with the required skills coalesce, and without the parity of esteem between vocational and academic education, we shall simply repeat the mistakes of the past. The next generation’s economic, social and life-enhancing prospects are too important to allow such an opportunity to change course. We cannot allow that to happen by default.

This debate has been timely and crucially relevant. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Monks for instigating it.

15:28

[Lord Layard (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate is about the low skills of the non-graduate workforce. For years, we thought that the answer to that was more full-time vocational education, so we introduced, first, the GNVQ, as has been said already, and then the diploma. Both of them failed because that is not the way to get skills to the people in a form that employers want. It was also not the form of training that the young people wanted—they wanted to earn at the same time as learning.

Eventually, by about 2009, the previous Government accepted that the main alternative to university education should be apprenticeships. That was an enormous step forward and it led to the apprenticeships Act. The most important thing in that Act was the guarantee offered that by 2015 every young person with minimum qualifications would be entitled to the offer of an apprenticeship. It was an extraordinarily important step because only a guarantee rather than a numerical target energises a system, and there are people for whom a solution has to be found.

Unfortunately, the coalition Government repealed that part of the Act. As has been said, they switched their main focus of expansion from youth apprenticeships to apprenticeships for those over 25, and we now have fewer youth apprenticeship starts than we did in 2009-10. However, there is a figure that I want to highlight. Among young people aged 18 today, only 8% are in work-based learning, 51% are in full-time education, and 41% are doing neither. That is a shocking fact which I hope will be addressed as a result of this debate. We need a completely new deal for that 41%, and I think that the right deal is to reintroduce by 2020 an apprenticeship guarantee. I will say a word or two about how it might be structured slightly differently from before and how it might be delivered.

As in Germany, the main type of apprenticeship has to be at level 3, as has been said already, but employers are going to accept on to such apprenticeships only those youngsters who already have a decent record of achievement. Therefore, we need a solution for the people who do not at that point have a decent record of achievement. We have to establish a new system of pre-apprenticeship courses in further education colleges which are explicitly aimed at getting somebody qualified for an apprenticeship. These courses, which exist only sporadically at the moment, would of course include work experience, but I think that if they were provided in a framework where young people knew that if they completed them properly they would be entitled to an apprenticeship, they would be overwhelmed with applicants.

Therefore, we need an apprenticeship guarantee with two parts. First, every young person under 21 should be entitled to take a pre-apprenticeship course and, secondly, everybody who successfully completes such a course should be entitled to the offer of a level 3 apprenticeship. Of course, others would also be entitled to the offer of a level 3 apprenticeship, such as those who had five good GCSEs, including maths and English, and those who have completed a level 2 apprenticeship or traineeship, as well as the new tech bacc, proposed by our party. I repeat that we need to think in terms of a guarantee with two parts: a pre-apprenticeship for anybody without qualifications to offer and a level 3 apprenticeship if they complete that successfully. Of course, the whole system of applications has to be integrated with the university application system through UCAS.

The second question is: how can we find places for all these people? Obviously it is in the collective interests of business to provide them, but pressure and exhortation has to be applied to individual employers, and that role has to fall on the National Apprenticeship Service, which was set up by the apprenticeships Act. The service’s record has not been perfect but it is the only national body with local outreach that could possibly be capable of doing the job. Of course, it will also need money to pay for the training subsidy that goes to the employer of each apprentice.

Fortunately, there is now a lot of money in apprenticeships, but it is going to the wrong people—to those over 25. Therefore, we have the scope, without huge extra expenditure, to redirect money to solve the problems of getting our young people off to the right start in life. Surely we ought to accept that our moral obligation is greatest to the people at the very beginning of their careers. Our obligation is especially to those 40% who are completely missing out at the moment. This is the time when we need to give them a new deal.

15:28

[The Lord Bishop of Coventry]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for leading this timely debate, in which I have learnt a lot. Perhaps I may speak rather anecdotally, and from where I come—Coventry. It is a city with two universities, both of which have an extraordinarily impressive history in relating to local businesses and developing qualifications, teaching and research that serve the world of work. The local economy of Coventry would have been in great difficulty in recent years without the excellent and genuinely multilayered provision from Coventry University and Warwick University, and I join the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in his congratulations and deep appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, for his work in this area.

Nevertheless, senior businesspeople in the city repeatedly tell me that there is still a serious gap in skills and that their businesses are undernourished without the young people with the skills and capacities that are needed. At the same time—this reflects a reality that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, referred to at the beginning—my diocese, or my patch, has worryingly high numbers of young people not in education, training or employment. The reasons for that are complex but many of the young people I see who are not in work, education or training seem to be themselves undernourished, lacking the sorts of skills and capacities that will help them to find the employment that will raise their dignity and give them the possibility of a fulfilled future.

Perhaps I may share with the House some of my findings on my travels around Coventry and Warwickshire, including visits to schools, conversations with business leaders and interactions with further education colleges and universities. I have four observations.

First, the range of post-16 educational opportunities, even as they are now, need to be made known to young people and their parents at the earliest possible point. Primary education should begin to open up the range of possibilities available to young people so that multiple routes into post-16 education and employment— traineeships, apprenticeships and further education courses—can be appreciated. To repeat a point that has been made, these have equal nobility and value to the route that is more familiar to many of our teachers and certainly to us—that is, GCSEs, A-levels and university.

Secondly, I very much appreciated the passionate comments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about further education colleges. However, from my own experience in Coventry and Warwickshire, they seem to be unsung heroes of our education system. I have been deeply impressed by the young people I have met in local FE colleges and by the liberation that their transformative education is giving them. I have heard many stories and they have been very moving.

As I look around, further education colleges seem to be key partners with the wider business community, working with local employers to design curricula, playing a strategic part in their LEPs, integrating work experience into courses and providing—I have seen some evidence of this—the sort of traineeships that the noble Lord, Lord Layard, referred to. They also provide the educational framework and tuition for apprenticeships.

I think it is worth saying that, although the focus in our debate is on young people, FE colleges train a high proportion of adults, giving vital opportunities for reskilling. While essential in its own right, the presence of adults as role models adds value to the formation of young people. It raises the bar of maturity in colleges and helps to breed the personal and social capacities of confidence, self-motivation and respect that the world of work demands and responsible human living requires. FE colleges are multi-generational communities of learning at the heart of their local communities. Hubs of educational activity, they deserve to be acclaimed and supported as vital components in not only the growing of skills but also, in so doing, the development of confident human beings. The potential of FE colleges should be further exploited and the possibilities of relationships with other institutions developed.

My third observation follows closely and reinforces much of what has been said. Apprenticeships need greater support and much more systematic and strategic attention than they are being given even at the moment. As I observe, the larger companies—JLR has already been referred to—have impressive traineeships for young, unemployed people and apprenticeships at GCSE stage. However, I hear from local business leaders that they need more help to incentivise support and to reward them for taking on apprentices, particularly at times of instability in the economy and uncertainty in their own industries.

My fourth observation is simply to say that I have seen the way churches, other faith communities and charities can have a significant role, not least through mentoring young people. To give an example of interventional work, I was with the YMCA recently and a young woman told me that without the accommodation that the YMCA had provided for her she would not have been able to enter her training course with the sort of stability she needed.

15:41

[Baroness Nye (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Monks for instigating this most interesting debate. I remind the House that the previous Labour Government were committed to ensuring that by 2015 there would have been an apprenticeship for every suitably qualified 16 to 17 year-old. There were just 65,000 apprenticeships when Labour came into office but nearly a quarter of a million in 2010. I welcome the fact that the figures for the post-25 age range have gone up since but the statistics, as has been said, for those aged under 19 have fallen and the unemployment rate for 16 to 17 year-olds is far too high.

As my noble friends have said, this is why Labour’s commitments to match the number of school leavers becoming apprentices to the number going to university and for a gold standard vocational tech bacc qualification are so important. Half the UK’s largest companies do not offer apprenticeships, and there is a case for trying to see that every supplier that bids for public contracts over a certain amount is asked to provide apprenticeships and training opportunities. It would mean that companies with good practices would then be on a level playing field with those that did not invest in skills and training.

However, I would like to talk about a group of young people who desperately need attention—those, as the right reverend Prelate has just mentioned, who are not in education, employment or training. It is an issue that has had cross-party consensus, I think possibly due to the fact that it is so difficult. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Young Women’s Trust, which aims to improve the lifelong opportunities for young women by addressing the poverty, inequality and discrimination that many of them face and to give them a forum where their voices can be heard.

In April this year the YWT launched an inquiry focusing on young women who are NEET—I apologise for using the acronym but if I do not use it I will get into trouble with the time limit—because for more than a decade there have been more 18 to 24 year-old women in this bracket than young men. In fact, one in five 18 to 24 year-old women is NEET and that figure is worse in some parts of England. The cause is not motherhood, which is a common perception, because only 24% have children. These young women will be affected for life by this experience but the country is missing out too, as the cost to the Government is more than £1 billion per annum in lower wages, lost taxes and increased benefit bills.

One of the initial results of the inquiry, which is due to finish early next year, has highlighted that these young women feel they have been let down by the career support and advice they have been given. When there are five hair and beauty practitioners chasing a single job, but two jobs for every construction worker, it does not make sense for girls to be three times more likely to be told to become hairdressers when boys are six times more likely to be told to think about IT or plumbing.

One young woman from Birmingham whom the YWT inquiry met said:

“I come from a working class area where it is difficult for girls to get anything but waitressing jobs. Boys get jobs quicker—they can get jobs in building”.

It had never occurred to her that she could get an apprenticeship to work in the building trade herself so that she could get a better paid job too. We need to encourage diversity of aspiration regardless of gender so that all girls can fully contribute to the world they live in.

We should look again at what happened during the building of the Olympic park. The Olympic Delivery Authority started the Women in Construction project to help women access training and employment opportunities on the site, which meant that more than 1,000 women worked on constructing the park and village. It achieved that by adopting an evaluation scorecard which meant that contractors had to address equality and diversity issues if they wanted to win a contract.

I am sure the Minister will say that the number of women starting apprenticeships has doubled but I hope that she will agree with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which said that,

“such inequality, especially in a publically-funded scheme, is not acceptable”.

The Government’s changes to the careers service are under attack from all areas, with even the CBI questioning their laissez-faire approach. Careers England says that eight out of 10 schools have dramatically cut the advice they provide. Currently too many young people—boys and girls—are dropping out of education and training. The consensus from Ofsted, the business community and the Education Select Committee is that the current careers advice and guidance provision is inadequate, lacks independence and is failing the young people that need it most.

Ofsted has also identified that too few schools work well enough with local authorities to target guidance for students at risk of becoming NEET. The new Secretary of State for Education—I think with her women’s inequality hat on—said recently in a speech to the Wealth Management Association that the Government were committed to providing better careers advice to young women at school, and I look forward to the Minister giving us more details about that this afternoon. Knowing the options is so important. Teachers are not always best placed to know about workplace opportunities. Young people need to talk to adults who have been through vocational routes, which is why so many of them say they find out through family and friends.

There are also limited opportunities for second chances for young women who are NEET. For example, 55% of young women who are NEET have not received any training or education since they left school, college or university. That is why Labour’s jobs guarantee will help all young people who have been unemployed for a year. Those aged 18 to 25 who have been out of work for 12 months or more would be offered 25 hours of work, preferably in the private sector, on the minimum wage, and the employer would have to guarantee compulsory training. This will go hand in hand with a new settlement for lifelong learning that does not discriminate between academic or vocational routes and, I hope, by gender.

15:47

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and congratulate him on introducing this debate. This is one of the central challenges facing British society, both economically and socially. Unless we can do something about vocational education we will face an increasing problem of NEETs, of which my noble friend Lady Nye has spoken. Opportunities for young people without qualifications are in secular decline. Unemployment rates for people without skills are rising and this is a huge social challenge. At the same time, we have the economic challenge of the huge skills shortages that we know exist in STEM subjects in technician-level jobs. That is a major barrier to us becoming a more successful industrial country. There is now a bit of an opportunity to reindustrialise ourselves.

There have been many expert speeches today, and I am not an expert in this field, but I have thought about it as someone involved in politics for a very long time. What has always struck me is how we have known about this major problem in our society—certainly for decades, though some would argue for over a century—yet no Government have managed to crack it, despite effort, lots of activity and lots of public money. Something about our politics explains this failure. It is partly a lack of ability to build consensus about how we do things—consensus that can last and survive a change of Government.

I remember that when we came to power in 1997 we had two very big promises on vocational education, both of which are worth reminding ourselves of because they show how Governments can fail as well as succeed. One was that we would establish a university of industry, which sounded wonderful—a kind of Open University for skills. The other promise was to establish an individual learning account which, again, sounded an absolutely wonderful idea where employers, individuals and the taxpayer could contribute to a pot of money with which people could decide for themselves how to improve their qualifications. Both of those great ideas bit the dust. Indeed, the ILA was a bit of a disaster and had to be withdrawn at very short notice.

A bit of my bedtime reading at the moment is the excellent book by Tony King and Ivor Crewe, The Blunders of our Governments. This is an area in which there have been blunders by Governments, with too many interventions from the top down by Ministers who try to change things. In future, we have to learn the lessons of that and try to think longer term on how we tackle these problems.

We should look to one of the great successes of Britain, which is our university system. Why are the universities successful? They are autonomous institutions, have a mixed economy of funding and have the ability to decide their own strategy. In vocational education we do not have that number of strong enough institutions and we must put the effort into remedying that systemic failure. What sorts of things would I look at? I would think about how we expand the excellent idea of university technical colleges. I do not think that they will really expand unless we empower our cities to do more in this area. Cities have a crucial role in deciding what skills are needed to be developed in their area.

Secondly, we have our colleges, as the right reverend Prelate said. At present, too many of them are chasing funding streams rather than thinking about how, as institutions, they play a role in the development of their local economy. I think that somehow we have to liberate the colleges. We need to give professional bodies, such as the engineering bodies, a much bigger role in deciding on technical qualifications which should become the ticket for the job. I believe that we need to correct the overflexibility of our labour market. I have come to the view that we will not make progress in this area unless we incentivise employer co-operation sector by sector, so that money for training is provided in return for controlled entry standards and decent pay for people who are doing apprenticeships. The Government have actively to try to bring employers together and perhaps recreate the kind of partnerships that used to exist in some areas with the industrial training boards. It is the institutions that need to be developed if we are to make this sector as successful as our universities have been.

15:54

[Lord Sheikh (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for tabling this debate and to commend him on his excellent speech. This is an important subject. It is essential that we discuss the alternatives for young people who do not attend university, and even more important that young people not attending university are themselves aware of these alternatives.

Our vocational qualifications system has grown too complicated, bureaucratic and hard to understand. I personally am a big supporter of apprenticeships and that is why I want to focus particularly on this subject today. I welcome the fact that this Government have overseen the biggest ever boost to apprenticeships. My party has also committed to delivering 3 million more apprenticeships over the next Parliament. The Government have made huge headway since they came to power in raising the status of apprenticeships so that young people leaving school view an apprenticeship and going to university as having equal merit. That is long overdue.

The role of government should be to provide people with the foundations that they need to better themselves. It should not favour one path over another but provide the equality of opportunity that means that people can go on to do what they want to do and do it well, knowing that as long as they work hard and do the right thing the Government are firmly on their side.

An important step in advancing the standing of apprenticeships has been the move to pay apprentices a national minimum wage. Apprentices are paid from the first day of their apprenticeship. For those for whom university is not suitable, I am sure that the prospect of earning while working and learning is a very inviting one. What is also important to recognise is that when securing an apprenticeship many young people get themselves a job for life. There is a vast number of examples of people who have started working for a company as an apprentice and worked their way up throughout their career. That gives a boost not only to young people, who know that their employer can offer them career progression, but to employers, who can only benefit from having people at the top of their companies who have first-hand experience of all areas of their business.

I am pleased to see that apprenticeships are becoming increasingly popular with 16 to 17 year-olds, with 15% more of them in apprenticeships compared to last year. Schools are legally required to secure independent careers guidance for 12 to 18 year-olds that includes information on the full range of education and training options, including apprenticeships. However, in 2013, Ofsted’s study of the early implementation of that duty found that apprenticeships were rarely promoted effectively, especially in schools with sixth forms. I fear that this may have more to do with finance than it does with education. The fact is that schools get in the region of £5,000 for each pupil that they keep on post 16, so they may not want to lose them. I encourage the Government to look into this and find out what is the best way around it, because without doing so there is concern that apprenticeships, skills and our young people will always be held back.

Apprenticeships are critical to tackling the skills gap that exists in Britain, which has held Britain back in its export and manufacturing capabilities. We need to expand our manufacturing base: manufacturing should be as important as my own business, that of financial services. We are still massively underperforming as a nation, with the UK ranked 23rd in the world for manufacturing output per head and 114th in the world for manufacturing output as a share of GDP. We must put employers in the driving seat to create new apprenticeship standards that will deliver the skills and businesses we need to compete. The Government must do all they can to make apprenticeships more responsive to employers’ needs and help to raise standards. I welcome the fact that measures are being brought forward which will give English apprenticeship funding directly to employers, following a recommendation from the independent Richard review.

Apprenticeships help not only young people; they help the country and the wider economy. The National Audit Office estimates that for every £1 invested by the Government in an apprenticeship, the economy gets between £18 and £28 back. Employers are getting involved in the design of apprenticeships to make sure that people gain the skills they need for a job. Apprenticeships provide young people with much needed experience that often leads to a full-time job, bringing real value to the businesses that take them on and motivating these individuals to gain skills and qualifications. High-quality, rigorous vocational education is essential to our future prosperity and to improving the life chances of millions of young people.

15:59

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. As every noble Lord has said, it is on a very important subject that is not often discussed this fully. It is a great pity that while many young people would like to go university, they often fail to get there. For poorer families, the cost is far too great. An article published recently in the Times alleged that a child would have to start saving from birth to have enough money to meet the costs of a university education. Of course, those in power over us—Prime Ministers, Chancellors and leading Ministers—have virtually all been to university, a point that is not lost on the young people who want to go. We are an advanced society so we really must arrange for people to have access to training in order to participate and to be able to obtain the sort of jobs they need. A number of speakers in the debate have indicated that there is a shortage of skilled people and we have to do something about that.

Many references have been made during the course of the debate to apprenticeship schemes. I am very glad that these have now been accorded a great deal of eminence and I hope that they will be improved upon. Of course, most of those who talked about them did not feel that they are as effective as they ought to be and that they should be developed. Improvements are being made through the introduction of technical colleges, but obviously a great deal more needs to be done in that direction. I am particularly concerned about the effect on women, a point that has also been made. Many years ago, when I was a member of the Equal Opportunities Commission, I remember that we introduced the WISE campaign, which stood for Women Into Science and Engineering. We had some success with it. We went to talk to schools and parents and we tried to persuade them that the study of engineering and of science generally was an appropriate way to ensure that girls would be trained. We now have women scientists and engineers, and that used not to be the case in the old days. That is the result of the successful campaigns we ran then, and there is no reason why we should not build upon what we achieved.

Many speakers have referred to the trade union movement, which has a long record of assisting people so far as education is concerned. Certainly a number of my parliamentary colleagues owe the fact that they have had a good education to their having won trade union scholarships, in many cases to Ruskin College. But it is not only a question of awarding scholarships; the unions have also been assisting in providing training in other ways. The TUC’s Unionlearn team has already found some success in providing training for those who missed out earlier in life. Many employers respect what the unions have done in this regard and have been willing to assist in ensuring that union members receive proper training. That is an important issue so far as trade union membership is concerned. My own union, Unite, has been deeply involved in pushing for better arrangements for people to be trained in the more advanced industries, in which there is alleged to be a shortage of suitable employees.

I hope that, as a result of our debates today and some of the recommendations that have been made by noble Lords, we are making some progress in a difficult area. We need to involve ourselves in helping young people, who need our help and assistance if they are to participate in training. Our two debates interlock: the first spent a lot of time, quite legitimately, on the whole issue of housing and housing poverty. We have young people who do not have proper housing and live in very crowded circumstances. It is not easy for them to study and to try to get into training schemes. That is all part of the problem that we have been discussing today.

I hope that the Government take seriously some of the suggestions that have been made. We need a framework in which young people can be assisted and trained for the future. It matters to all of us, not only to the young people themselves—it is important to the rest of society. I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate and I hope that the suggestions that have been made by a number of people are seriously considered by the Government.

16:06

[Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monks—I was going to say my noble friend; he is a friend, really—on securing this debate. It dovetails nicely into the one that we had earlier.

I look forward to the day when a completed apprenticeship is regarded as being just as valuable as a completed degree course. The two need the same status so that individuals feel equally valued by society. I particularly want to talk about the opportunities for apprenticeships in construction available to those who decide not to attend university.

When having work done recently on my house, I wanted a properly trained architect, bricklayer, plasterer, carpenter and electrician to make sure that the job was done properly. These skills are becoming more difficult to find. The latest figures, which show rising employment and falling benefit claims in the UK, have shed light on a skills timebomb. Official data showed that the number of bricklayers claiming jobseeker’s allowance dropped to 1,775 in August from a peak of 15,425 in March 2009. It also showed construction wages up by an annual 4% in July. That makes construction at the artisan level one of the strongest performing sectors for pay growth, while in the wider economy wages are failing to match inflation.

The numbers reflect the rise in work for an industry that shed many skilled workers during the recession. When projects were cancelled and new work dried up, many either left or chose not to join the industry. The sector lost almost 400,000 people. Another 400,000 are due to retire over the next five years, according to the Construction Industry Training Board. Now, as builders take on new work, the shortage of skilled tradespeople has allowed bricklayers and other subcontractors to ramp up their hourly rates. We are returning to the age of the “Loadsamoney” plumbers, plasterers and painters that plagued the Thatcher era and are symptomatic of a cost-push inflationary spiral affecting housebuilding costs. A number of government-funded apprenticeship schemes are in place, but they need to attract many more young people to construction if we are to solve the appalling housing shortage.

Some time ago I tabled a Written Question about the shortage of skills in the construction industry. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, replied:

“There has been no specific assessment of the availability of skilled personnel for the home building sector.”

That was a surprise. He went on:

“The Construction Industry Training Board’s latest Construction Skills Network Report forecasts an annual recruitment requirement for the construction sector, including home building, of 36,400 a year for the 2013-2018 period.”

We are nowhere near that. He added:

“Under the auspices of the Construction Leadership Council, the house building industry is developing an action plan to address two immediate priorities: improving the image of house building and attracting back experienced workers who left during the recession, and other workers with relevant skills.”—[Official Report, 11/6/14; col. WA 253.]

To attract young people to construction, we need fewer screaming headlines in our media predicting a construction slump, which happened after the August figures for construction were released. We are now in late October, and the August figures are ancient history. Let us face it: there is no news value in the fact that construction can go up as well as down in its output, so it will be ignored by most people working at the sharp end. Construction has been on a meteoric trajectory over the past 18 months. With all parties now writing their manifestos for the next election, it is clear that building more homes will be a common theme. The view from the ground is that construction will be a good place to be for many years to come. If we want to attract young men and women into construction, they will not be assisted by foolish national headlines based on limited data that imply that construction is still a rollercoaster industry. I am not sure that we can do much about the reporting of the Office for National Statistics figures, but the Government have a role in ensuring that the construction sector has a stable future with a sufficient number of properly trained personnel to build our future.

I heard about a young woman who decided not to go to university. Her teachers and parents were horrified and tried to change her mind, but she wanted to be an electrician and was very determined. She took an apprenticeship and was successful. Now, four years later, she is earning more than her older brother who went to university. Unlike him, she has no student debt; nor does she have a drink habit. More importantly, she is happy, and her parents are not horrified any more.

16:12

[Lord Macdonald of Tradeston (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Monks for securing this excellent debate. The growing support for vocational training and apprenticeships is encouraging. As a time-served engineering apprentice, I hope that it restores some of the esteem that vocational training once had.

Labour Party policy on vocational education and training draws on the work of our skills task force, led by Professor Chris Husbands. Labour’s commitment will also be reinforced by the recent report of my noble friend Lord Adonis, Mending the Fractured Economy, in which he advocates a major expansion of high-quality vocational education and apprenticeships promoted locally to address skills shortages. In addition, Ed Miliband appointed Maggie Philbin, the former presenter of “Tomorrow’s World” to chair another task force on digital skills. Her recent report, Digital Skills for Tomorrow’s World, makes many practical and affordable recommendations, starting with schools, where digital training must begin if those who later choose a vocational route are to succeed.

To put that in context, the digital revolution is gathering pace and that will have a profound effect on the alternatives available to young school leavers. The McKinsey Global Institute recently listed what it described as Disruptive Technologies: Advances that will Transform Life, Business and the Global Economy. The first was the mobile internet. The second was the automation of knowledge work. The third was the growing network of sensors embedded in our lifestyles—the internet of things. At number four was that other arcane advance, cloud technology. Fifthly, there was the more familiar threat to jobs: advanced robotics. Those are the five horsemen of the digital apocalypse, as sketched by the consultants of McKinsey.

The risk to jobs is also highlighted by Oxford University academics Carl Frey and Michael Osborne, who conclude that jobs are at risk of being automated in almost half of all occupational categories over the next two decades, including repetitive functions in management and professions largely untouched until now, such as law, accounting, medicine and academia.

It is not easy to give career advice on how young people might shelter from this gathering storm. When the Economist listed the jobs most likely to survive computerisation, in its inimitable way it led with recreational therapy, then dentists, then personal trainers and then—the right reverend Prelate will be glad to hear—members of the clergy. The serious point is that almost all alternatives for young people not going to university will also be digitised; therefore, the factor that might be of most help to most young people will be to improve their digital skills.

The trend in the jobs market points towards self-employment and the forced flexibility of contract work. An insecure portfolio future of short projects, collaboration, marketing and pitching for work will require good social skills and familiarity with all aspects of social media online. A positive hope is that the popularity of social media among young people, with all its risks and allure, will help close the gender gap, with more young women keen to learn digital skills. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, technology and online access may also be a new way into work for people with disabilities and could encourage ethnic groups into wider roles across the economy.

I confine myself to recommendations from our Labour reviews on education and the need to start with smaller steps on the first rungs of the ladder. A promising start has been made in English primary schools with a new computing curriculum. The view of Labour and our commissioned digital skills report is that we should now ensure that each school has the funding to support the ambition. Similarly, teachers must be trained in computing as a matter of urgency through properly resourced continuous professional development. Each school could be encouraged to recruit a governor with expertise in computing and they could network best practice across their local schools. Business and professional bodies should collaborate to create a national online service dedicated to digital career advice. The pressing importance of digital skills must be acted on now at all levels of education. Additionally, schools could have a key role in hosting community access to digital infrastructure and expertise. Beyond the school gates, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry said, further education institutions could play a key role if they are able to adapt quickly to the new priorities.

In conclusion, I do not think that this Government or previous Labour Governments have done too badly compared to global competitors across the developing digital economy. The digital revolution is now global and constantly changing, so a degree of confusion and false starts is inevitable. However, a priority for government in this area must be to reduce the bewildering number of overlapping organisations and initiatives—that blizzard of acronyms referred to by my noble friend Lord Monks. The Government should rationalise, cut duplicated costs and ensure that young people exploring their career options can navigate the digital world with skill and confidence. Can the Minister tell the House what progress they have made in cutting through the clutter?

16:18

[Baroness Prosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too wish to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Monks for putting this debate on the agenda today. Yesterday, quite opportunely, a gas engineer came to my house bringing with him a young apprentice whom I managed to quiz about his training experience. I asked him what role his school played in guiding him into his current position: it turned out to be zero. An annual visit from the careers service to address the school assembly seemed to be the sum total of it. He decided himself to apply for an apprenticeship with British Gas and registered on its website. His period of learning lasts for three years, with some time with a qualified engineer and with some college-based work; and then he is on his own, but with a buddy system in operation for help and guidance.

I have deduced three things from this. First, it demonstrates a yawning gap between the education service and the world of work. A lack of understanding, knowledge, interest, concern—call it what you will—there is far too much evidence that schools cannot and largely do not handle this work. Given this situation, which we have known about for some time, can the Minister explain why it was decided to devolve delivery of the careers service to individual schools and what plans the Government have to improve matters?

Secondly, I concluded that this was a good training model—partly on the job, partly college-based learning, and with access, as time went on, to the buddy system. Thirdly, and very importantly, I concluded that this young man had shown initiative. He wanted to be a gas engineer and had sought out the website to find out how to go about it and make himself available. Nothing comes for nothing in this life and putting one’s best foot forward is an essential ingredient of progress.

Earlier this year, a piece of work was done jointly by the Industry and Parliament Trust—I declare an interest as deputy chair of its trustee board—and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which identified many good examples of traineeships and apprenticeships that are equipping people to gain qualifications and experience in a variety of fields. We met the trainees from British Sugar, who are studying for a level 3 diploma in process engineering. We also met trainees working with Whitbread’s Premier Inns. Hospitality is, of course, a large and growing part of our economy and the company has pledged to provide 50% of its training opportunities to 16 to 24 year-old NEETs. We also met with the car builders Nissan, QinetiQ, the providers of high-tech services, Rolls-Royce, M&S, HSBC, Nestlé and others.

One theme which came through loud and clear was the shortage of school leavers who have studied the STEM subjects. Can the Minister advise the House of any actions taken—or intended to be taken—to address this issue, which, it has to be said, has been with us for a long time? In her reply, I hope that the Minister will also address the need to encourage more girls and young women to study the STEM subjects. I hope that she may be able to tell us that there is a plan in action to achieve this.

In his opening remarks, my noble friend Lord Monks mentioned the City & Guilds report Sense & Instability, in which it expressed regret at the constant churn and change, over a long period, of government policies, priorities and practices. It calls for better long-term planning for skills policy, which would be linked to long-term economic needs, greater coherence between central and local government, greater scrutiny and better checks and balances. Currently, skills and learning are divided between two government departments, making a difficult situation even more difficult. If we are to be fit and able to compete properly on the world stage then we need to up our game and ensure that every young person receives proper advice and guidance, enabling them to contribute in the most suitable way possible.

The industrialists of the 19th century, who made vast sums of money from the manufacture of textiles, armaments and shipbuilding, et cetera, did not encourage their sons to continue in trade—there were no daughters involved here, of course—but sent them off to the professions to be doctors and lawyers, and so on. That industrial snobbery remains with us today and it is up to us all to do what we can to chase it away. It is long past its sell-by date.

16:23

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Monks on what has been an absolutely fascinating debate. I do not envy the Minister having to try to sum up and respond to all the suggestions she has received.

I want to make a few points. If there is one thing that we all share—there are some common objectives—it is that we all want to enhance the quality of apprenticeships as well as increase their numbers. It is sometimes difficult to achieve the quality as well as the quantity. I acknowledge this Government’s commitment to apprenticeships but they are building on the achievements of the previous Labour Government, who, as my noble friend Lady Nye reminded us, rescued a dying apprenticeship scheme. There were just 65,000 apprenticeships, with a 27% completion rate; as my noble friend reminded us, when we left office there were nearly 280,000, with a 72% completion rate.

We did something else that tends to be forgotten: we said that careers advice in schools should span the whole range of careers and we built that into an education Act. As we constantly hear, that is honoured more in the breach than in the commission. We also raised the participation age—not the school leaving age, as people constantly say, but the participation age. We tried to ensure that every young person was either in work, education or training, and if they were in work, that they were receiving some training.

We did not get everything right. I do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who said that we should not have gone for the target of sending 50% of young people to university. We did not get it all right, but we did raise the aspirations of a lot of young people who would not even have thought about going to university. It worked for some and not for others, but it was not the wrong thing to do. I accept that it had the unintended consequence that my noble friend Lady Morris identified. Towards the end we started to rescue the situation when we recognised the importance of apprenticeship and commissioned the Leitch report on skills. This is not an easy thing to get right.

I thank my noble friend Lord Monks for his history lesson on qualifications. It is absolutely baffling and we need to try to rationalise it. My noble friend Lord Macdonald and I are the only ex-apprentices in the Chamber at the moment. There may be others but they have not revealed it. It gives you an advantage in that we went through the scheme and it provided us with great careers in the end.

There is one thing that I criticise the Government for in relation to apprenticeships and that is that they made a fetish of the numbers when, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, we ought to have a narrower focus. I would not be quite so narrow as to say focus on 16 to 18 year-olds, although I regard those as vital. Even if we go as far as 24, if we look at the increase in 25-plus since 2009-10, for under-19s we have seen a minus 4% change in apprenticeships, while for 25-plus we have seen a 352% increase in apprenticeships. It does not matter what figures you look at—I am looking at figures provided by government sources. If you look at the number of starts in apprenticeships in the 2013 academic year, there were 117,800 at under-19, 156,900 in the 19 to 24 age range and 157,000 by those aged 25 and over. Of course, there is a role for reskilling, but whether these should be badged apprenticeships is a question that the Richard review commented on. When we get these huge figures reported by the Government it is, unfortunately, misleading.

The other problem that the Government had to resolve was the emergence of the six-month apprenticeship. The Government have come some way, not enough, in saying that for an apprenticeship to be an apprenticeship, it has to be at least a year. We do not think that that is enough; we think that it should be two years. Worse still, we had employers who were not even paying the minimum wage: that is another problem. If we are talking about enhancing the status of apprenticeships we have got to make sure that we are serious about that so that boys and girls, and their parents, can feel confident about the quality of the career they are going to embark on.

As part of the House of Lords outreach programme I was at a secondary school near me and at the end of the question and answer session I asked how many of them were going to university. All the hands shot up. This is a very diverse but not particularly affluent area. I said that I was glad to see they were not deterred by fees, and then I asked about the alternatives. After about a minute or so, one young girl mentioned apprenticeships, although she did not really know much about them. I said that it was a bit unfortunate that the school was not giving those young people the full range of career options. We know that some of them will regret that university choice, because it will not be for them, and it will cost them a significant amount of money. So if we are talking about getting the status of apprenticeships enhanced, we have to do something about this conflict of interests that seems to infect most schools in the country. They are rewarded if they keep pupils on in the sixth form, and that seems to be their goal. Therefore, advice about alternative career options is just not good enough.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, paid tribute to the late Lord Dearing as regards establishing university technical colleges, which do their bit to enhance vocational qualifications. That is still going to be a challenge for us. So many people have given us such interesting information as we have gone through this debate. My noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya has shown what can be done. But if we are serious about ensuring that there is a viable alternative, we should not pose this as an either/or choice for young people, because it is not a matter of either taking up a vocational choice or going to university. As we know, one can lead to the other, so we should not present it in that way. We want young people to realise that they are both valid and important career choices, and we want to get them both having the same amount of esteem, if they go down that route.

I could not help smiling when my noble friend Lady Nye talked about telling young women that there are alternatives to hair and beauty. I agree, but as a man you have to be careful how you say that. I do not want to demean hair and beauty—and there is an apprenticeship scheme for that choice. There is a danger of an apprenticeship snobbery developing, whereby people think that it is only a real apprenticeship if it is in engineering. There is a whole range of good-quality apprenticeships. That is what we have to ensure.

If we gain power after the next election, we have said that we want to safeguard the trusted and historic apprenticeship brand, which we think has become a bit tarnished under this Government. We have announced that under Labour we would ensure that all apprenticeships are quality apprenticeships, are at level 3 and last a minimum of two years.

I end with a question for the Minister. Why do this Government continue to resist the point that significant public sector procurement contracts should carry with them the requirement of training and apprenticeships? We did it in the Olympics and it was successful, and we did it with Crossrail; something approaching 400 apprenticeships were achieved from that—and not only that, but practically everyone in the supply chain awarded apprenticeships. I am absolutely puzzled about this matter. If the Government have a serious commitment to enhancing the number of apprenticeships, they should ensure that procurement contracts require that guarantee.

16:33

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, this debate is an incredibly important one, certainly given the progress made in this area by this Government over the last four years, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for raising it, as well as all of your Lordships who have contributed with a wide breadth of experience. It is also interesting to hear about the various backgrounds that people speak from. Given that it has not been mentioned today, I thought that I should declare that I availed myself of a polytechnic education—I will just put in a plug for that.

I shall try, in the course of my responses, to address as many of noble Lords’ points as possible, although I have a raft of papers here with notes on. If I do not address everything, I promise to write to noble Lords whom I have neglected to respond to.

Just how much education and training can do to improve the prospects of young people and, indeed, the well-being of our society as a whole, is something that those of us on this side of the House are always eager to discuss. It is worth noting—and I also get these figures from government sources—that there are 91,000 fewer people not in employment, education or training at age 16 to 18 than there were in 2009, so this is at its lowest recorded level. Across the age group of 16 to 24, there is a significant improvement in those young people in employment, education and training, showing just how much progress is being made in this area.

Recognising the importance of education and training was one of the founding principles of the coalition Government. Since 2010, it has been one of the cornerstones of our programme for government. This is a principle based neither on accident of birth or parentage, nor on some whim of the state about who should and who should not get a chance in life, but on how individual effort and achievement must be encouraged and recognised. I sense that this is a point on which the noble Lord, Lords Monks, and I are likely to agree.

More than 50 years ago, the late Lord Robbins enunciated the great and good principle that higher education should go to those with the wish and ability to benefit from it. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, was closely involved in that work and is entitled to some of the credit for a principle by which successive Governments stood until after the turn of the century. This was also an era of targets and clutter—as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, called it—in the public sector. I point to one of those targets today—and many noble Lords have actually spoken about this. The target of 50% of young people going into higher education was a target that was never reached, as my noble friend Lord Baker pointed out. Even after the benefits that the successful introduction of tuition fees have brought to our universities and the highest-ever numbers of 18 year-olds applying, the latest provisional figures for 2012-13 show that still only 43% per cent of 17 to 30 year-olds are going to university, which is roughly the same proportion as under the previous Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, and other noble Lords asked us today the highly pertinent question of what happens to all the others. At the time, this was a rather forgotten issue, although it would be unfair if I failed to acknowledge those enlightened individuals—and I speak now particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is not in the Chamber today—who pressed for the creation of more vocational opportunities for those young people who do not go to university, alongside more places for higher study.

The economic crisis and the UK’s declining position in world skills indices made such calls even harder to ignore. Therefore, when they came to power, the present Government did not advocate further deepening the ancient division between our two societies of educational haves and have-nots, but instead pledged that there would be a place in work or high-quality training for every young person who does not go to university.

Despite all the pressures on public spending in recent years—and this has again been alluded to today—we have gone far towards delivering on that pledge. Notably, we have increased to their highest-ever level the number of people participating in an apprenticeship, set shortly to reach 2 million. We introduced a completely new programme of traineeships for those 16 to 24 year-olds who need to further develop the skills and experience needed to compete for an apprenticeship or other job. We introduced a new and better approach to vocational training in schools in the form of technical awards for 14 to 16 year-olds and tech levels for 16 to19 year-olds.

What we have today is not a forgotten 50% but a whole generation at last given cause to hope for the future, to look forward with confidence to succeed in the world and in life, just as apprenticeships have for literally centuries offered the skills that this will require. Of course, they continue to do so and with over 1.9 million delivered since the beginning of this Parliament, and nearly 850,000 people currently participating in an apprenticeship, we are well on course to meet the ambition of 2 million places by the end of the year, to which the Prime Minister has committed us.

Part of the reason for this is the Government’s willingness to invest even in difficult times. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, that this year’s Budget made available £170 million in additional funding over 2014 to 2016 to extend the apprenticeship grant for employers. This will fund more than 100,000 additional incentive payments for employers to take on young apprentices aged 16 to 24, providing a major boost to their job prospects. I confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about the minimum wage being paid, although I take on board the issue raised in that regard by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I hope that he will write to me giving further details on the possibility that this may not be the case, and I will be very happy to reply to him.

From January 2015, the scheme will focus on companies with fewer than 50 employees as opposed to fewer than 1,000 employees, as is currently the case. Employers can receive £1,500 per apprentice for up to 10 new 16 to 24 year-old apprentices. This is already proving a powerful incentive, with 95,200 apprenticeship starts made using the grant since February 2012.

The Budget also made available £20 million in funding over the same period for new support for employer investment in apprenticeships that include an element of higher education up to postgraduate level, which will provide apprentices with the high-level technical skills that employers increasingly need, and to which many noble Lords alluded. This applies also to new starts for apprenticeships from the 2014-15 financial year. This will complement the £40 million funding over 2014 to 2016 for 20,000 more higher apprenticeships announced in the last Autumn Statement, more than doubling previous volumes.

However, an equally large reason for success lies in our willingness to engage with employers co-operatively and constructively. Many noble Lords have spoken of employers needing to engage, co-operate and take the driving seat in delivering future skills, but quality has to be the key here also. Quality is whatever commands the confidence of a potential employer in an individual’s ability to do the job. It makes sense, therefore, for employers themselves to be given the buying power needed to determine the skills content of an apprenticeship, from the traditional manual trades to the newer areas in which we find apprenticeships—areas such as IT and law. This is precisely what the funding changes we have introduced over the last couple of years are designed to do.

Without employers, meaningful vocational training just cannot happen. Learning on the job presupposes that there is a job on which to learn. There is absolutely no point in just telling employers to get on with it. A large number have already recognised the value of apprenticeships in meeting their businesses’ present and future skills needs. I am very pleased that the armed services, in which the noble Lord, Lord Monks, among other noble Lords, served his apprenticeship, remain a shining example of this.

That is a nettle no previous Administration have dared to grasp. But with about 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, we saw no realistic alternative. That is why the substantial extra investment in their prospects that I have mentioned, coupled with measures to increase their employers’ confidence in the programme, have been absolutely necessary. With that, too, young people themselves can be reassured that the qualifications for which they study have already been validated by those who will eventually judge what they are worth. How different from the days not long ago, before Professor Wolf’s timely review, when literally thousands of often meaningless qualifications and a plethora of competing acronyms, to which noble Lords referred, vied for the attention of students and employers alike.

Following my introduction, I should like to try to address every single point that noble Lords have made. I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who talked about us comparing badly to other countries in certain sectors and said that some apprenticeships were very much skewed towards the service sector. The national colleges and UTCs are responding to sectoral demand for the hard, STEM subjects. He also talked about the change in qualifications being confusing. The change is simple to understand: to give them a chance in life, students need to have maths and English GCSE by the age of 19. It is also simple to understand that young people can choose between doing a work-based training programme or a vocational, technical or university qualification.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, talked about the Richard review and about employers being given more autonomy in terms of money going straight to them. He also talked about the types of skills they will require. The trailblazer scheme, the UTCs and the national colleges have all gone some distance to address this. He also spoke about skill shortages. The UTCs, the trailblazers, the tech levels and tech awards should also start to address some of these problems. He also made a point about Germany making apprenticeships more glamorous. In this country, demand for apprenticeships is so high that we are not having to glamorise them. Germany suffers from the different problem of demographic change, which means it has fewer people to fill jobs, and it will have to address this in the future. By the same token, I have experience of companies in this country which have had to import skills from Germany. We must get better at providing the skills to meet the demands of employers.

My noble friend Lord Baker touched on the issue of the huge shortage in engineering. To hear his words has been music to my ears because for the last 10 to 15 years in local government it has been woeful. At the last count, there were 48,000 engineering vacancies for 24 people available to do them. He also talked about skills and put out the slightly controversial case for no exams at 16. I am not sure that I agree with him on that as I would not like to shock a young person into their first exam at 18 or 19. However, I thank him for his long-standing commitment to and hard work in improving technical education for 14 to 18 year-olds. Our investment in UTCs so far has led to 56 either open or preparing to open, providing 35,000 students a year with a high-quality technical education, driven by employers. I make the point again about employers being in the driving seat.

In terms of supporting 14 to 16 year-olds to develop practical and technical skills and knowledge alongside their GCSE study, the key stage 4 qualifications known as technical awards, which I have already spoken about, will be taught from September 2015. These will encourage an interest in technical subjects such as engineering and technology and others will develop practical skills such as woodwork or dressmaking. My noble friend Lord Baker made the point that apprenticeships should be for young people. The funding system prioritises apprentices up to 19 years old but we need more employers to offer young people a chance to show what they can do, assuming the best of them not the worst. This may be a bit of a gap in the system but the links between businesses, schools and colleges are absolutely key for the future.

My noble friend Lord Addington talked about apprenticeships requiring an English qualification, which is a specific challenge for those with dyslexia. Apprenticeships give young people the opportunity to develop a range of skills, and experts such as Professor Wolf have stressed how a good level of English and maths is essential to support career progression. As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, pointed out, other apprenticeship schemes considered to be world leaders include maths and language skills because they are so important. However, my noble friend is absolutely correct to say that we need to ensure that reasonable adjustments are available. The current skills funding rules include a statement making this absolutely clear, and we continue to seek other ways in which to promote adjustments to support learners. My noble friend also talked about support for dyslexia and the JISC. It is not being wound up; it is in a strong financial position and has secure funding for the short term at the very least. It is, however, restructuring and some regional centres may close. He also made the point about employers being more engaged and willing to play their part in assisting apprentices with dyslexia.

The noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, talked about money shortages for employers. I have already gone some way in talking about that, but for every pound that an employer spends the Government will spend £2, up to a cap. He also said that the Government should fund courses that employers value. I wholeheartedly agree and that is why we are reforming apprenticeships to put employers again in the driving seat of design and delivery. This is why we have introduced the tech levels that I have spoken about for 16 to 19 year-olds, and all tech levels are backed by at least five employers or a relevant industry body. That is important in terms of giving confidence in the workplace and providing parity of esteem, which so many noble Lords talked about. Examples of the firms that are backing the tech levels include John Deare, Lovell, Proctor & Gamble and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, talked about the cultural problem for women of apprenticeships, which seem to be skewed towards boys or men. I have looked at some of the figures and there is actually a challenge there in terms of engaging girls better. She also talked about some sort of technical baccalaureate. It was, in fact, introduced in September of this year. It is an alternative to A-level; I am not sure whether it is on the same basis as the Labour Party is suggesting but, for noble Lords’ information, the performance tables will be produced in 2016.

The noble Lord, Lord Rees, said that not everyone should have to go to university. That is the way in which this country needs to culturally change. Not everyone has to go to university. I went to a polytechnic and it is no shame to do an apprenticeship. In fact, some of the most successful people I know have done apprenticeships.

I am aware that time has run out and I am barely half way through answering noble Lords’ points. If I can, I will write to them in due course because I am aware that there are about 10 noble Lords left to respond to. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

16:54

[Lord Monks]

I thank the Minister for her conscientious reply. Those who await her follow-up points in a letter do so with bated breath. I thank my noble friend Lord Young for his remarks. I am not sure that he got apprenticeship to be sexy, but he keeps trying and is always very interesting on this subject.

I thank everybody who contributed to this important debate. We must raise the attention, interest and dynamism behind the area of vocational education and training for these young people, and I hope that this is the first point in a lot of attention that this House gives to the subject.

Motion agreed.

Malawi

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

16:55

Asked by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to support economic and social development in Malawi.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, Malawi is a nation of about 15 million people. It is a peaceful, democratic nation and a proud member of the Commonwealth. It is a landlocked country, but Lake Malawi is one of the most stunning lakes, and the ninth largest, in the world, with more species than any other. On 6 July this year, Malawi celebrated the 50th anniversary of its independence, on 6 July 1964. I thank those responsible for my opportunity to secure this Question for Short Debate. I am also delighted that observing the debate this evening are His Excellency the High Commissioner Bernard Sande and colleagues, who have joined us for our deliberations.

Since 1964, Malawi has seen many ups and downs. In 1994 it celebrated the introduction of multiparty democracy and in that time it has seen development in many ways. Malawians are a proud and good people, and good friends to the UK, and to Scotland and Scots in particular. Scotland’s relationship with Malawi goes back 150 years to the time of Dr David Livingstone, that pioneer who was described by Kenneth Kaunda as Africa’s first freedom fighter. Livingstone’s successors, such as Dr Robert Laws, who ran the Livingstonia Mission for decades, and Mamie Martin, who pioneered girls’ education in that part of Africa, were all committed to helping Africans develop Africa themselves. This was not the traditional colonial relationship but one that was much more about mutual respect.

In the 1950s it was the Scots who stood strongest with the Malawians, first to oppose their movement into the Central African Federation, which was a disastrous step by the then British Government that pulled together southern and northern Rhodesia with Nyasaland, as Malawi was then called. Secondly, the Scots supported the Malawians during the state of emergency that followed; in 1959 this included the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland leading the international voice that said that it was time for a daring and creative transfer of power to the people of Malawi. The transfer happened just five years later.

In the first independence Cabinet in 1964, a Scottish lawyer, Colin Cameron, one of the few non-Africans to serve in a Cabinet in post-independence Africa, served as Minister for Works and Transport. Forty years later, in 2004, he was to become one of the inspirations behind the Scotland Malawi Partnership, when Strathclyde University, which had been home to Dr Livingstone almost two centuries before, established with the two Lord Provosts of Glasgow and Edinburgh the partnership. This was reinforced and strengthened in November 2005 by a co-operation agreement between myself as First Minister of Scotland and the then President Bingu wa Mutharika.

The co-operation agreement was based, as all the work over those 150 years had been, on mutual respect, development and working together. Today, the Scotland Malawi Partnership has hundreds of members. It is a non-governmental organisation that has in its membership all of Scotland’s universities, half of Scotland’s local authorities and hundreds of schools. There are health projects and active health partnerships operating in everything from epilepsy to midwifery and from prosthetics to rural GP advice.

A recent survey showed that 94,000 Scots and almost 200,000 Malawians are now actively engaged in these links, and that 200,000 Scots and more than 1 million Malawians benefit from this activity, which contributes mostly in kind about £40 million to Malawian development every year. It also showed that there is widespread support: that 46% of Scots personally know somebody who is involved in people-to-people links with Malawi, and that 74% of Scots have been in favour of those links overall. It is a unique and special model. My first question to the Government is: will they encourage others around the world to look at similar opportunities to link either parts of nation states or small nation states with smaller areas in the developing world in a way that develops mutual respect and mutual benefit but, ultimately, development as well?

The second matter that I wish to address damages that respect and good will, and it is the issue of UK visas. The good will and respect that have been developed are regularly threatened by the shambles surrounding the UK visa system for those in Malawi and other poor countries trying to get to this country. The system is dysfunctional, it is certainly disproportionate and it is, in my view, deeply damaging. From the 15-page application form that people have to fill in to the posting of passports to countries far away, which then have to be returned on time but regularly are not, to the proof of wealth that is required as evidence to secure a visa to come to this country, to the cashless system that encourages sharks to charge a fee to use their credit cards, as people pay them cash—all these measures have led to a whole series of people month after month being denied the opportunity to come to this country from poor communities in Malawi, and indeed elsewhere, in order to contribute to debates and discussions here, even when their host is a highly reputable UK or Scottish organisation or even a government body.

This is an issue that the Government need to take more seriously than they have done in the past. What steps will they take to clear up this chaos and improve the system in the short term? In the longer term, will they initiate a proper investigation to see how the system can be made more likely to contribute to the good relations between this great friend of Scotland and the UK, rather than damaging the relations that are being developed today?

As the 50th anniversary celebrations got under way this year, Professor Peter Mutharika, the new President of Malawi, said very clearly that,

“we need to transform our country from being a predominantly importing and consuming country to a predominantly producing and exporting country … we must strive for economic and development independence”.

I am sure that all of us wholeheartedly endorse and support that vision. However, today in Malawi 60% of the population still live on less than £1 a day. For every 1,000 children born, 68 will die before the age of five, and one in 200 women will die in childbirth. Although 24% of children will have had diarrhoea in the last two weeks, only 16% will have gone to secondary school. Malawi today is still only 170th out of 187 in the Human Development Index.

While there has been progress towards the MDGs on HIV and child mortality, Malawi is unlikely to meet the MDG targets on poverty, primary education and maternal health. Growth and development has been damaged in recent years by political instability, by economic ups and downs and by some more serious problems, as well as by the recent “cashgate” scandal that the new Government are trying so hard to deal with. As a result, UK aid has been partly suspended and direct support to the Government has been suspended indefinitely.

My final questions to the Government are about that UK aid, which is so critical, along with that of other donors, in the short term at least, to securing Malawian development towards the vision of economic independence. First, can the Minister outline for us what plans the Government have in the medium term to move back to a system of general budget support and sectoral budget support that would reinforce the capacity of the central Government of Malawi to deliver for its citizens?

Secondly, what support is the UK providing to build the capacity of central government and national institutions in Malawi to help ensure that scandals such as “cashgate” do not happen again? Thirdly, I have to tell the Minister that I found it very difficult to secure these figures from the DfID website, which I found to be a little bit out of date in places, including referring to the future elections in 2014 rather than the ones that had just happened.

I ask the Minister, if she can tonight, to outline exactly where UK aid is going at the moment. What is the expenditure targeted towards and what is the impact of that expenditure this year? I think that is important information that reinforces the friendship between our two countries and also allows us to hold the Government accountable for that expenditure.

In conclusion, Malawi is for very good reasons regarded as the warm heart of Africa. The friendship between our two nations, not just Scotland but the whole United Kingdom and Malawi, will be there for a very long time. I hope that, in addressing these questions this afternoon, we will be able to contribute to that friendship and move forward together to development and proper independence in the future.

17:06

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, the House should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for initiating this short debate on a small, faraway country of which many people know little but which he and I know extremely well. I join him in congratulating the Scotland Malawi Partnership. I was on the preparatory committee that set up that partnership and he was the First Minister who saw it implemented. It has gone from strength to strength. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have continued to support it very strongly, and I endorse what the noble Lord said. When the noble Lord referred to the history of Malawi, I remembered on one occasion sleeping on the bed of Dr Laws in Livingstonia—not an experience I would recommend to anybody. It was simply a bed constructed out of rope.

In a very short speech I want simply to raise two issues. The first is the question, to which he alluded, of “cashgate” and our aid programme. The figures may not be on the DfID website but sources in Malawi suggest that some $500 million went missing over eight years during the period of the previous Government in Malawi. That is, according to Malawi sources, something like 30% of Malawi’s total budget. When you think that it is a very small country with a population of 16 million and an economy smaller than the London Borough of Hackney, you realise that the damage done by the “cashgate” scandal is enormous. Therefore, it is understandable that not just Her Majesty’s Government but the new Malawi Government are doing their best to see that those who were responsible for this are brought to book.

The former President, Joyce Banda, in a lecture at the LSE this month, said that she was alerted to this scandal at the tail end of her regime by Alexander Baum, who was the European Union representative in Malawi. That enables me to say that I do not share the general view that has been put about that the European diplomatic community is somehow less effective than our own. In my many visits to Malawi, I have found that the small diplomatic community there worked together more cohesively than I have seen in any other country. I pay tribute to the European representative as well as to our own.

In the lead-up to the referendum after Dr Hastings Banda’s period, I was involved in the struggle to bring better democracy and transparency to Malawi. It must be frustrating for the population of Malawi to realise that they have suffered under kleptomaniac rulers who have made a mockery of democracy. I know that our Government and the German Government have financed the external audit that is trying to track down what exactly happened. The United Kingdom has to be tough on this issue. It cannot resume the full aid programme until it is resolved. It should also warn even the new Government that extravagance will not help. There have been press reports from Malawi that the current President took 68 people with him to the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York—not a good example to set when he is doing his best to track down the blatant corruption of the previous Government.

Although we have suspended budgetary aid to the Government, I hope that it will still be possible for DfID and other organisations to continue to give direct programme support to various factors in Malawi. In the areas of health, education, agriculture and support for the judiciary, it is important that, even though we cannot give government budgetary aid, we continue to give direct assistance.

To give an example from my own experience, the last time I was there, which was a couple of years ago, I visited a hospital which was very well organised. It had rural outreach clinics and took drugs out to the villages on motorbikes. Somebody had given about a dozen motorbikes to the hospital. I am not a motorbike expert but I think they were probably Chinese—they were quite cheap—and a lot of them had broken down. In fact, there was only one left that worked; the others were all in a shed. Here is an example of when a little ingenuity and a little money, to get a mechanic out there to cannibalise the motorbikes so they could work again, would greatly increase the efficiency of that service. Not a large sum of money was involved. That is the kind of imaginative thinking that our hard-pressed DfID staff in Malawi should be looking at. The Government should be willing to finance such individual projects even if they cannot give direct help to the Malawi Government.

The second issue I want to touch on is the visa regime, ably mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. As it affects Malawi, it is particularly bad because visa applications have to go to Pretoria in South Africa. Under the Malawi rules, one cannot pay in rand without clearance from the banks. The whole thing is a bureaucratic nightmare. We had a debate on this issue, which is totally unsatisfactory, in the Moses Room a few months ago. We have lost accountability for the visa service. It has been farmed out to an agency, which in turn has farmed it out to subcontractors, presumably on a cheap contract basis. The result is that the service is extremely expensive for Malawi citizens and it is very time-consuming. Mr Tom Greatrex the MP who represents Blantyre, David Livingstone’s birthplace, feels very strongly about this. He has raised it several times and is about to have an Adjournment debate in the Commons on the issue.

In the mean time, I want to make two suggestions, which my noble friend might pass on to the Home Office. First, I do not understand why, when people are coming for short contributions to public seminars of a kind that I complained about before, and will be here for only a few days with firm sponsorship, those issuing the visas cannot telephone the sponsors to make sure that the application is genuine. The idea that visa applications are rejected because people might overstay or give up their careers, families and everything else in Malawi to stay in Britain is simply ludicrous. Another suggestion is that we might change the visa system to insist that sponsors for short-term visits should themselves sign declarations accepting responsibility for the person returning and being liable to a fine if the person does not return. That might cut through a lot of the bureaucracy and establish a visa regime that is fit for purpose.

Better still, I would like to be rid of the agency and go back to the system we used to have. I can remember as an MP on several occasions having to phone a high commissioner or an ambassador and say, “I hear that so-and-so has made an application for a visa and has been turned down. Can you have a look at this?”. They would look at it and say, “This is why it has been turned down. It is perfectly reasonable. It is good policy not to let this person come here”—or, alternatively, they would say, “We have looked at this. It is bureaucratic nonsense and we are issuing the visa”. There is no accountability any more. It has gone. If we cannot get it back, at least steps should be taken, as the noble Lord said, to ensure that the system is improved. I hope that the Home Office will respond in the debate which Mr Greatrex is having shortly in the other place and will come forward with positive ideas on how to improve the system for the benefit of good relations between Malawi and ourselves.

17:15

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, want to thank my noble friend for initiating this debate tonight. As we have heard, Malawi is one of the poorest and least developed nations in the world, ranking 170 out of 187 in the Human Development Index and with rural poverty increasing in the last decade to 57% of the rural population.

Although fragile and despite many challenges, DfID’s latest annual report—which, I accept, is a little out of date—shows that Malawi’s macroeconomy is displaying some signs of improvement. There is no doubt that progress has been achieved through DfID’s focusing on the key priorities of attacking poverty and inequality, and through investment in education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, with an emphasis on the rights of girls and women—that is absolutely right. DfID has promoted wealth creation and economic growth by expanding its private sector development portfolio to improve growth in the agricultural sector.

More women are being helped to access finance through village savings and loan schemes. Of the 26,000 additional people supported to access credit through DfID in 2013-14, 21,000 were women. DfID’s work in resilience is helping to improve rural incomes and reduce the vulnerability of farmers to external shocks. An additional 74,000 people were supported to cope with natural disasters in the 2013-14 period. In the same period it helped 140,000 people to have access to clean water and improved sanitation, and by 2015 it will have supported 750,000 people in that way.

Despite DfID’s work supporting accountability reforms and preparing for the 2014 general elections, poor governance and corruption continue to prevent Malawi from achieving its full potential. As we heard from noble Lords tonight, DfID has frozen its direct budget support to Malawi as a result of the so-called “cashgate” scandal, which saw substantial sums of aid funds going missing, with the Government of the then President, President Banda, being heavily implicated in the diversion of funds. This is the second suspension of direct aid arising from corruption in the past three years. As we have heard, the suspension is ongoing despite the May 2014 elections, which saw the removal of President Banda and her replacement with Peter Mutharika.

Clearly, we support the move to suspend aid if there is strong cause to believe that misappropriation is happening. However, for a country so dependent on aid, this is a huge hit, especially when other donor nations have also frozen budget support. I am of course aware that DfID believes that sufficient action has not been taken to address financial and management issues under the new Administration. However, in these circumstances there is a need for DfID to engage closely with the new Malawi Government to ensure that there is a clear road map of steps that can be taken that will lead to the reinstatement of budget support.

In that respect there are a number of questions that I would like to ask the Minister, which have been reflected already by noble Lords, particularly my noble friend. First, have DfID Ministers met with Malawi Government representatives to discuss progress on tackling corruption and steps towards the resumption of budget support? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the willingness of the new Government to take serious steps to improve financial management? Thirdly, what was the outcome of the DfID-funded forensic audit team operating in Lilongwe to attempt to identify misappropriated funds?

Despite the progress I have referred to, Malawi still faces huge challenges in health and education, where just 66% of young people complete their secondary school education. Can the Minister highlight for noble Lords what impact the suspension of budget support is having on public services? Is the department happy that the continuing funding for NGO-based programmes in Malawi is proving effective at limiting that impact? Moreover, as and when budget support recommences, is there the potential for back payments to be made that will help to reverse the negative impact of funding shortages on public services?

Sustained youth unemployment, underemployment and low pay are a severe drag on the nation’s ability to tackle poverty levels, a situation that is set to be exacerbated in a nation where almost 47% of the population is under the age of 14. As I have indicated, the UK’s development programme for Malawi rightly includes a substantial private sector development programme, but it is not clear that it is adequately focused on the particular issues of youth unemployment or on moving people from precarious work into more secure and properly remunerated jobs. The private sector development programme concentrates particularly on the oil seed sector and on reforms that would help to grow it as an export sector, but as with much agricultural work in Malawi, wage levels and working conditions are extremely poor. Is there enough focus on encouraging sustainable, properly remunerated employment in this sector, and how is DfID ensuring that its funding and support for agricultural regulatory reform strikes the right balance in enabling private sector led employment growth while protecting the small-scale farmers who make up the bulk of Malawi’s rural population from land grabs and unfair practices?

Some 20,000 farmers in Malawi currently benefit from fair trade schemes, particularly in the tea, coffee and groundnut sectors, with premiums being reinvested in rural schools, healthcare and infrastructure. However, with 90% of the population working in agriculture, there is clearly enormous scope for further expansion. Yesterday, along with my noble friend, I met with members of the team from the CDC Group who highlighted the direct investment being made in a company in the DRC to develop palm oil—in a very difficult situation for arable operations. This has already resulted in improved wages. I discovered that the negotiations with the trade unions were carried out on television, so they were there for everyone to see; it is a practice that we could perhaps adopt here because it might improve things. A major ingredient of the success which the CDC highlighted was the level of co-operation between DfID officials locally and the CDC in assessing the resilience and sustainability of what is clearly going to be a long-term investment. Does DfID’s private sector development programme in Malawi provide a specific focus on and assistance to the fair trade sector? Also, in encouraging British investment in Malawi, does the department, along with the high commissioner, actively seek to promote fair and ethical trade opportunities?

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, and my noble friend have raised the issue of visas, and I want to repeat their questions. In the end I would ask the Minister to ensure that there is a review of the current operation to assess its effectiveness, proportionality and impact on the current system of civic and community links. As my noble friend so ably put it, we must recognise the essential role that civic society can and should play in Malawi and among its partners in the United Kingdom—particularly, as we have heard in the debate, in Scotland. We must strengthen both economic growth and good governance.

17:24

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for initiating today’s debate and for his passionate and well informed introduction. I also welcome His Excellency the High Commissioner and others from the high commission who are interested in the debate today. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has a deep and long-standing interest in Malawi. He points out that there are particularly close links between Scotland and Malawi from David Livingstone onwards. He outlined very effectively how close those links are today. We have, of course, close links in the United Kingdom with other developing countries, often developed from a shared history, as in the case of a number of other African countries, and from diaspora links, as with Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, notes that Malawi celebrates 50 years of independence this year. In that time, it has achieved a significant reduction in child mortality, an increase in food production, free primary education for all and the establishment of a multi-party democracy, with a vibrant free press and civil society and a series of peaceful elections. Development assistance, including from the United Kingdom, has been critical but that is quite a series of achievements.

Yet, compared to some of its neighbours, Malawi’s progress has been slow. Average life expectancy at birth remains 55 years, 90% of people live without electricity, and only 28% of girls finish primary school. Landlocked and resource-constrained with a high population growth, Malawi continues to face the problem of lifting its people out of deeply entrenched poverty. Development assistance that addresses the underlying barriers to progress remains essential.

The recent multi-million “cashgate” corruption scandal, to which noble Lords have referred, in which it was discovered that significant amounts of public money had been stolen through systematic manipulation of the Government of Malawi’s public financial management system, was, and continues to be, of great concern to the UK. This money was stolen from the Malawian people, setting back much-needed poverty reduction. My noble friend Lord Steel and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, make extremely clear how significant this has been.

At the request of the Malawian Government, the UK funded—reference has been made to this—a forensic audit of government accounts to establish the extent of “cashgate” losses, the methodology used and those involved. Now the final report has been handed over, Malawi’s law enforcement agencies must continue to work methodically to bring the perpetrators of “cashgate” to account through the courts and deliver justice for the Malawian people. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are monitoring this very closely. The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that every pound of UK aid money achieves its intended results and maintains a zero-tolerance approach to corruption. This is why, in concert with other donors, we took the decision to stop providing all financial aid to the Malawian Government in November 2013. There can be no consideration of putting UK funding through government financial systems in Malawi until the necessary actions to strengthen these systems have been taken and independently verified. We will keep this situation under review.

While we cannot work through government systems, the UK continues to work with Government and others for change in Malawi. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, asked about capacity building to avoid future “cashgates”. The new Government of Malawi have committed to a greater degree of transparency and we will be working with them to take broader and sustainable action to tackle corruption and foster a culture of integrity in public life. As I have said, we are monitoring this very closely.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about meetings with Malawian Ministers. A Minister in the Foreign Office, my honourable friend James Duddridge, whom the noble Lord will know, met the Malawian Minister of Foreign Affairs at the United Nations General Assembly recently.

The United Kingdom remains one of Malawi’s major development partners but, as I said, is not routing that support through the Government. We continue to provide a large programme of support to reduce poverty and assist poor people across Malawi through other channels. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we work hard to ensure that the poorest people do not suffer further as a result of “cashgate”.

I also note the projects that my noble friend Lord Steel mentioned. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured to know that in the financial year to March 2015, the United Kingdom is providing £61 million of bilateral support to the people of Malawi, representing 2% of its national income. That is complemented by the UK’s considerable contribution to Malawi through other channels, including the World Bank, the European Union—to which my noble friend Lord Steel paid tribute—the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, UK-based NGOs, and regional programmes. United Kingdom support creates educational opportunities for girls and boys, supplies life-saving drugs to the health sector, tackles undernutrition in young children and in people living with HIV, and provides vital inputs to farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned several of those areas.

We are delivering significant demonstrable results for poor people. Since 2011, the United Kingdom has helped more than 350,000 women to access family planning services. By 2015, more than 400,000 women will have improved access to security and justice. By 2016, we will have ensured that 750,000 more people have access to safe, clean water. Our support enabled 5.2 million people to vote in recent general and local elections.

Those results are underpinned by important transformational changes: governance reforms, health systems improvement, transparency and accountability for citizens, and girls’ and women’s empowerment. We enable households and communities across Malawi to build resilience to climate change and chronic food insecurity. However, we are well aware of the need, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, outlined, for people to have jobs. That is vital.

However, Malawi’s future needs to move beyond a heavy reliance on aid. Malawi must stimulate the creation of growth, markets, jobs and incomes for all its citizens, as the noble Lord pointed out. To that end, the UK is supporting Malawi’s economic development. We are working to improve the business-enabling environment, and the diversification and development of Malawi’s export market. We support smallholder farmers to diversify their production. We are helping to connect these farmers at local markets in Malawi to regional markets.

The new Government now have an opportunity to address the issues which have long held Malawi back from the most sustained growth and progress. They have an opportunity to set a strong vision for poverty reduction and to implement essential reforms to public financial management and the civil service, necessary to restore the confidence of the Malawian people and investors. I welcome those who are attending the debate today. They have an opportunity to rebalance the Malawian economy from one heavily supported by donors and reliant on the state to one more driven by private-sector investment and entrepreneurship.

The people of Malawi have seen past Governments promise much but fail to deliver. The new Government will want to show that they are different by working hard to deliver real change for all their citizens. This is what we want to see.

We welcome the first signs from the Government that they are serious. We welcome the civil service and public service reform commission, the President’s stated commitment to zero tolerance on corruption and the fiscal discipline prioritised in the recent budget.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell—indeed all three noble Lords—flagged up the issue of visas. We are very keen for Malawians to be able to travel to the United Kingdom. We have alternative payment methods for those who do not have credit cards. This was an issue that was mentioned. Poorly paid people from Malawi are not discriminated against in applying for visas. There is no income threshold. I hope that it reassures noble Lords that 84% of applicants processed in Pretoria are successful. About 1,400 visas were issued last year.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, was critical of our online system. A recent IT upgrade has improved this capacity by about 33%. I will of course pass on to my colleagues in the Home Office the comments made in this debate. I note that there will be a future debate in the other place. I hope that I can also reassure noble Lords that these are areas that of course we will keep under review to balance the costs of our process and its purpose, and at the same time encourage visits.

We value our relationship with Malawi and Malawians. It is a country with such a bright future. We are closely engaged in trying to ensure that it can deliver that bright future for the people of Malawi, whose level of poverty has been made extremely clear in this debate.

The United Kingdom, which I am extremely glad also includes Scotland, has been a long-standing supporter of the people and communities in Malawi. While working hard to protect all UK taxpayers’ money, we will continue to provide much-needed continued assistance for sustained improvements in poor people’s lives.

House adjourned at 5.36 pm.