House of Commons

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

Thursday 30 October 2014

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps she is taking to ensure that the Marine Management Organisation receives additional quotas of ray.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The Marine Management Organisation is urgently pursuing the possibility of quota swaps with other member states. If sufficient additional quota can be acquired through this means, a limited reopening of the fishery may be possible. If not, the fishery will reopen again on 1 January.

[Mr Cox]

Last week the important fish processor in my constituency closed its doors, with the loss of many jobs. Many marine experts regard the monitoring and data processing of landing declarations by the MMO as a joke. Will the Minister hold an inquiry into the management of quota by the MMO? What is he to say to northern Devon fishermen and allied trades who have lost their jobs when, as a result of their pioneering conservation measures, fish stocks in the Bristol channel are abundant?

[George Eustice]

I am very sympathetic to the arguments my hon. and learned Friend makes. Indeed, when he raised it with me last week I asked the MMO to redouble its efforts to find additional quota. It has been a very good summer of fishing. We do not normally have this problem with skates and rays. It is something that took everyone by surprise, including producer organisations. However, I am keen that lessons are learned. That is why I will be having discussions with the MMO about how it manages the quota on this particular stock. We will also be looking to ensure that next year his constituents continue to have a quota to fish from 1 January.

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

Will my hon. Friend guarantee to the House today that he will do everything he can to seek additional quota in the negotiations next year to ensure that British fisherman can continue to fish for the whole year without this disastrous effect?

[George Eustice]

Yesterday, I was in Belfast for the meeting of a stakeholder group of fishing industry leaders. We discussed the approach to the December Council. The UK always takes a science-based approach. We have to recognise that it is in the long-term interests of the fishing industry that we fish our fisheries sustainably. That said, we will be looking at mixed fisheries analysis to ensure that we achieve maximum sustainable yield where possible next year and everywhere else by 2020.

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

2. What plans she has to reduce water bills.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

Ofwat will announce its current price review in December. The draft determinations indicate that average water bills in England and Wales will fall by up to 5% in real terms from 2015 to 2020. This will mean lower bills for hard-working taxpayers as part of our long-term economic plan.

[Mr Watts]

I thank the Secretary of State for her reply, but is it not the case that the Government have allowed water companies to boost their profits by 12% while average households have lost 5% of income? When will the Government stand up to the fat cat water bosses?

[Elizabeth Truss]

If we look at how much water bills rose under Labour, we see that from 1999 to 2009 bills went up by 20%. Under the new tough regulation of Ofwat, we are seeing a potential reduction of up to 5%, meaning lower bills for consumers, more investment in the water industry, and cleaner rivers and beaches.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

One way to reduce water bills is to reduce unnecessary water consumption, which occurs as more meters are rolled out. Another way to reduce costs is to cut leakage. What steps are being taken to encourage the water companies to increase the number of meters and to cut their leaks?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we make water usage more efficient. What we have seen since the industry was privatised 25 years ago is £116 billion of investment to upgrade infrastructure, reduce leakage, put in meters and make the industry more efficient.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

What the Secretary of State has studiously avoided telling us is the record of this Government since 2010. Will she tell us what the percentage increase in water bills has been since 2010?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the early price determinations under this Government were the result of the previous Government’s policy. The recent price determination that has happened on our watch is seeing a potential reduction in the draft determination of up to 5%. We have already seen water companies keep their bills low and stabilised in recent years.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

3. What recent representations she has received on the marine charter and marine protected areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

We regularly receive correspondence about marine protected areas, including on the marine charter put forward by Link. I will be attending the marine charter parliamentary reception on 19 November.

[Annette Brooke]

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, let me say how pleased I am that Dorset was included in the original 27 marine conservation zones. However, does the Minister agree that there is a long way to go before we can achieve a full network of marine protected areas by 2016, as set out in the Act, and can he say what level of commitment the Government are giving to achieve those important objectives?

[George Eustice]

Earlier this year we announced 37 candidate sites for the second tranche of marine conservation zones and we intend to publish a consultation on the second tranche in the new year. It is our intention to have a third tranche in 2016, so the work to take forward additional marine conservation zones is well under way.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

But a lot of the work has already been done. For example, a huge amount of research was done on whether the 127 marine conservation zones were economically viable. When will the Minister actually start designating the zones that are needed if we are to have an ecologically coherent marine conservation network?

[George Eustice]

We have started designating them. The first 27 were designated a year ago and, as I said, we are consulting on the second tranche. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is doing a huge amount of work—it did a lot of work this summer. We spent around £10 million on research to get the best evidence we can so that these decisions are informed by the scientific evidence. That work is going on, and we plan to do this in three tranches, as we have made clear all along.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will agree that marine protected areas are only part of the conservation measures we need in our seas. Does he agree that more conservation work needs to be done, for example on bass, stocks of which, so the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea informs us, are absolutely plummeting?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Minister for the marine environment, he did a huge amount to take forward marine conservation zones. When it comes to bass, I can tell him that we expect to have an important breakthrough in December. We have always said that there should be technical measures. The stock has been fished unsustainably and there is a tentative proposal, which we expect to be raised at the December Council, that will look at both bag limits and catch limits, so that we can preserve this vital stock.

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

I wonder whether the Minister has ever been to the Isle of Wight, which is of course an island that people can get to only by using a ferry. There is concern on the island that marine protection areas could get in the way of ferries, which are the only regular way to get to the island. What is he going to do about that?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend has extended an invitation to me to visit the Isle of Wight. I look forward to a journey on the hovercraft—I think it is the last one we have operating in the UK—to meet his constituents. He has raised concerns about some of the proposed marine conservation zones around the Isle of Wight. I can assure him that socio-economic factors are taken into account when we assess MCZs, as set out in the 2009 Act. I hope to have the opportunity to visit the Isle of Wight in the months ahead.

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

4. What steps she is taking to ensure that communities affected by flooding recover.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

The Government have committed around £560 million to support those affected by flooding last winter. That includes an extra £270 million to repair and maintain critical flood defences. We are helping households and businesses through the repair and renew grant and through council tax and rates relief. Farmers and fishermen are receiving funding for repairs through existing schemes and we are supporting businesses through a £10 million hardship fund.

[Diana Johnson]

After Eton flooded in February, the Prime Minister promised that money would be no object. However, for many Hull homes and businesses hit by the December tidal surge, that soon changed to “Out of sight, out of mind,” and they are still awaiting help. Can the Minister tell me what percentage of the promised assistance to flood-hit communities has actually gone to those affected?

[Dan Rogerson]

As I set out to the hon. Lady, there are a number of schemes in place. Some are still paying out and will do so until the end of the financial year. If she has particular concerns about issues in her part of the world, I would be happy to meet her, as ever, to discuss them, but those schemes are available to all those affected by flooding during the period of extreme weather from early December last year through to the end of April.

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

More homes were flooded in 2012-13 across the Yorkshire region, so I hope the Minister might meet a delegation of Yorkshire MPs to consider how our roads and bridges might best be recovered. What progress has been made with the Treasury on having one fund—one budget—between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure for total expenditure on flood spending? That would help communities to recover more quickly and end the senseless rows about the size of the pump and which budget it should come from.

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee for her question, raising issues to do with transport recovery, which have been well supported by the Department for Transport. I encourage my hon. Friend and other colleagues from Yorkshire to continue to discuss that with Ministers from that Department. On the distribution of the maintenance, revenue and capital money that we have invested in flood defences and coastal risk management—a record amount of money—we continue to discuss with the Treasury whether flexibilities might be helpful in this regard. The Select Committee’s work has been of great help.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

My constituents in Morpeth and Hepscott remain extremely concerned about the future of flood risk insurance. Will the Minister update us on where the Government are in discussions with the insurance companies?

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman’s part of the world has seen investment in flood schemes to help protect communities and keep them safe, and I understand that that work is coming to a conclusion. On flood insurance, we continue to make progress, along with the Association of British Insurers, to set up Flood Re, a new organisation that will provide affordable flood insurance to those not provided for in the market. We are on track to implement that next year.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Like the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), I have constituents living in flood-risk areas who are struggling to get reasonably priced flood or household insurance. Is there a date by which the insurance companies will offer the new support for which we are looking, and, in the meantime, should they not be a little bit more flexible with constituents living in these areas?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend any specific issues he has on behalf of his constituency. The statement of principles, which exists with the insurance industry, is still in operation up until the implementation of Flood Re. We of course have regular discussions with the industry to ensure that people are being offered the flood insurance they need.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), which the Minister failed to give, is £403,000 out of the £10 million that the Government promised—less than 5%. That applied at the beginning of the summer recess. Tomorrow is 31 October, the day on which the Government promised that all the 890 flood defences damaged last year and in need of urgent repair would have that work completed. Will the Minister assure us that the 49% of those repairs that had not been completed by last month will be finished by tomorrow, as promised? The people at risk from those 437 unfinished schemes would really like to know.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that work has continued since that reference point in September. The vast majority of those schemes will be completed by the end of the month, and temporary defences are in place to protect any communities where the work is still ongoing into November. The vast majority will be completed by the end of this month.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

5. What part her Department has played in negotiating the transatlantic trade and investment partnership.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

TTIP could be worth up to £10 billion a year for the UK. It has the potential to deliver significant opportunities for UK agriculture, food and drink. We are working very closely with BIS to ensure that TTIP maximises the benefits for UK businesses and consumers.

[Roger Williams]

The poultry industry, by which I mean the producers of poultry meat and eggs, have driven up animal welfare standards and hygiene in their businesses. Will the Minister assure that industry that that progress will not be compromised by unfair competition from US producers following lower standards?

[George Eustice]

I have met members of the poultry industry and the British Poultry Council to discuss their concerns. We managed to get a very successful free trade agreement with Canada. Sometimes it is possible to work through the sanitary and phytosanitary issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, as well as animal welfare issues, and to establish equivalent rather than identical measures. That is the spirit in which we should approach the negotiations.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome the openness of a free trade agreement, but can the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that there are no mechanisms included in it—such as an investor-state dispute settlement—that would enable powerful vested interests to bully future Governments into dropping legislation that would improve food standards? We have already seen that happen with the disgraceful action of the Philip Morris tobacco company against the Australian Government.

[George Eustice]

I know that some people have expressed concern about the use of ISDS. Both the European Union and the United Kingdom are very conscious of that, and we do not intend to allow such agreements to undermine our ability to set our own welfare and regulatory standards when it comes to animal health.

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

Given that this country has been a member of the European Union in its various guises for more than 40 years, does my hon. Friend not think that we could have made faster progress in negotiating the trade deal with the United States of America if we had been doing it on our own rather than relying on the European Union to do it for us?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend may be right. It might have been possible to reach some of these free trade agreements more quickly. Indeed, we do make certain changes bilaterally, when it is a question of breaking down some of the non-tariff barriers to trade. However, being part of a customs union in the EU is of significant importance to our food industry, which is the largest manufacturing industry in the country.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

6. How many badgers were killed in the recent pilot culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

Bovine tuberculosis is a terrible disease which threatens the future of our beef and dairy industries. We are pursuing a comprehensive strategy which includes improved cattle movement controls, vaccination in the edge areas, and culling badgers in areas where the disease is rife. We will publish all the data and the results of this year's culls once the quality assurance processes and the independent audit have been completed.

[Paul Flynn]

No answer, of course. Why are the Government so determined to carry on with this failed project, which is unpopular, ineffective, cruel, and bad science on the part of the nasty party?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Let us remember the situation that we inherited in 2010, The last Government failed to take any action on this issue, and we ended up with the highest rates of bovine TB in Europe. Are Opposition Members proud of that record? Are they proud of the fact that the disease increased ninefold on their watch? As I have said, we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy which includes improved cattle movement controls, vaccination in the edge areas, and culling where the disease is rife.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

If we are concerned about all God’s creation, we ought to be just as concerned about cattle as we are about badgers. Is it not the case that the Republic of Ireland, whose beef cattle and dairy herds are similar to ours and which has had similar problems with TB, has followed exactly the same policies as this Government, and as a consequence has seen a 25% reduction in cattle TB infection?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point about Ireland. A similar policy has been pursued in New Zealand, where numbers have also been reduced; and Australia, whose comprehensive strategy involved culling in the wildlife population as well as improved movement controls, has eradicated bovine TB. It is vital to the future of our dairy and beef industries that we eradicate this terrible disease. We are the Government who are prepared to make difficult decisions, rather than repeating the outrageous failures of the last Government. They left us with the highest rates of bovine TB in Europe: that is the disgrace.

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

Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s bluster, it is a fact that, following the catastrophic failures in year one—last year’s failures were catastrophic—in year two the Secretary of State abolished the independent expert panel, which was too independent for the Government. The Government watered down the estimates of the badger populations, and threw out the Secretary of State’s own original guidance, which involved culling 70% of badgers within six weeks in year one. Why did the methodology used to calculate the number of badgers change from year one to year two, why does the methodology applying to Somerset differ from that applying to Gloucestershire, and why were the methodologies not subject to independent scientific review? Let us go on the evidence.

[Elizabeth Truss]

An independent audit of the culls is currently taking place. A review is also being undertaken by our chief veterinary officer, which is important. The British Veterinary Association fully supports our comprehensive strategy to deal with bovine TB, and it is about time the Opposition thought about how they would deal with this terrible disease rather than criticise our policy, which has been shown, using international evidence, to deliver.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Bearing down on this terrible disease in cattle must clearly involve evidence-based policy making rather than policy-based evidence selection. Further to the question on the scrapping of the independent expert panel, what will the Government do to ensure that the evidence collected from this year’s cull is presented to the whole of the scientific community that has expertise in this subject?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend; it is important that we base our policies on science and evidence, and I am determined to do that. That is why we are independently auditing the results of this year’s culls, and why we had our chief veterinary officer and our chief scientist sign off the numbers for those culls. It is important to understand that this is part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with this issue. The strategy involves vaccination in the edge zones and cattle movement controls, as well as culls where the disease is rife. It has worked in Australia, and it is working in Ireland and New Zealand. Why will the Opposition not look at the evidence?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a lot of questions to get through and we must make more timely progress.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to promote adaptation to climate change.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

We are building the nation’s resilience to a changing climate primarily through the implementation of the first “National Adaptation Programme” report, which DEFRA published last July. This sets out more than 370 actions across key sectors involving Government, business, councils, civil society and academia. The Environment Agency’s Climate Ready Support Service also helps a wide range of organisations to adapt.

[Wayne David]

It is clear that the Minister’s Department has a real problem with credibility. Will he unequivocally condemn the crazy ideas on climate change expressed by the previous Secretary of State?

[Dan Rogerson]

The position of the coalition Government on mitigation and adaptation has been consistent throughout. The hon. Gentleman asks for my view on opinions that might have been expressed by the former Secretary of State. It would seem that he took a different view on the anthropogenic nature of climate change. However, the Government’s position is clear and has remained clear throughout.

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

12. Our climate has changed and the risks to the UK have increased considerably, yet the Government have abandoned Labour’s climate change strategy. Will the Minister reverse his Government’s disastrous decision to tear up the consensus on the Climate Change Act 2008 and recommit to the recommendations of the Pitt review?

[Dan Rogerson]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has played a leading role in European and international negotiations on carbon emissions, as have other ministerial colleagues. I pay tribute to him for doing that. In relation to adaptation and the implementation of the Pitt review, we are moving on that and we are now consulting on the implementation of the sustainable urban drainage systems—SUDS—regime, which forms part of the final few recommendations in the Pitt report. We are therefore making progress, and I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in what we are doing.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

8. How many flood protection schemes are beginning construction in 2014.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

Between April 2014 and March 2015, 54 major new flood and coastal defence schemes will be starting construction. Over the period of this Parliament, we are spending more than £3.2 billion, compared with £2.7 billion in the previous five years, to protect this country from floods. This is one of my key priorities as Secretary of State.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer, which I am sure the communities that will benefit from the schemes will welcome. Will she ensure that work starts next year on the Lowestoft flood alleviation scheme, which will not only protect the properties that were badly damaged in last December’s storm surge but attract new investment and jobs to the town?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I enjoyed walking along Lowestoft seafront with my hon. Friend. It was rather a blustery day, but it is a fine town. I look forward to hearing further representations from him on the subject. He is a champion of the people of Lowestoft and I will listen very carefully to his representations.

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

May we ask this quite new Secretary of State to start doing some joined-up thinking? Is it not about time she joined up the fact that the climate change and the flooding, which we are getting globally but which is making life very hard for people in the floodplains of this country, is linked to global warming? When will she be a big beast, as I hoped she was going to be, or even a little beast, and bang the table in the Cabinet to get us back on track on fighting global warming?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree that the erratic weather patterns are linked to climate change, which is why my Department is spending a huge amount on flood defences—we are also getting value for money. We are the first Government to put in place a six-year forward-looking programme on capital expenditure for flood defences, meaning that an additional 300,000 homes will be protected.

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

9. What steps she is taking to support local authorities tackling air pollution in urban areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

Local authorities are key to achieving improvements in air quality. We are taking steps to support them, including enabling them to focus more on practical actions to reduce air pollution through plans to streamline reporting requirements. We have DEFRA’s £1 million air quality grant programme, and we are also funding local transport projects. For example, £560 million has been allocated from the Government’s local sustainable transport fund between 2011 and 2015.

[Mr McCann]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but he will know that on 26 September DEFRA published a report on air pollution showing that there has been no improvement in the UK’s air quality over the past year and that 38 of the 43 zones exceed the legal limit for nitrogen dioxide. What is going wrong?

[Dan Rogerson]

We are taking action locally, nationally and at the European level on the regulation of vehicle emissions, which is crucial to tackling this pollution. The Government are making progress on the issue, and we welcome what local authorities across the country are doing to engage with us on improving air quality locally and meeting our obligations.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State welcome the Mayor of London’s game-changing proposals for an ultra-low emissions zone by 2020, which would go a long way towards enabling London to meet existing agreed emissions standards? Will she ensure that London gets the support it needs from central Government to bridge the remaining compliance gap by 2020?

[Dan Rogerson]

I welcome the fact that the Mayor of London has begun consultation on further proposals to improve air quality in London. I look forward to hearing more on the details of what he is proposing and of course remain very willing to discuss with him how we can support that action.

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

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), given that many, if not most, of the roads breaching agreed European standards are in London, when was the last time the Minister met the Mayor of London and how confident is he that we will avoid the fines threatening the UK because of those breaches?

[Dan Rogerson]

I have not met the Mayor of London recently, but of course our officials discuss things locally. I recently held a workshop with local authorities across the country, including those in cities in the north, which are working hard to tackle local aspects of air pollution. As I say, I welcome what the Mayor is doing—his consultation on further measures he might take—and when the Government see the details of those proposals we will be happy to discuss how we might support them.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

10. What recent progress she has made on improving the cleanliness of rivers and beaches.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have made good progress in cleaning up our bathing waters and rivers. Our bathing waters are cleaner now than ever before, with 98% of them passing EU standards. Our rivers are in far better health. Pollution from sewage has gone down significantly. For example, phosphate pollution will fall by a fifth and ammonia by a sixth by 2015.

[Mark Garnier]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I believe she is already familiar with the majesty of the River Severn running through my constituency and with the extraordinary work done by the Environment Agency in keeping that river clear. But does she agree that smaller and less impressive rivers such as the River Stour, which also runs through Kidderminster, are just as important and need just as much attention?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I enjoyed walking down the Severn as a child when we briefly lived in Kidderminster—it is a lovely river. Those rivers are highly valued for their landscape, recreation, angling and drinking water supply, and we are involved in many projects to improve the fish stocks on the River Severn. Overall, this Government have cleaned up 10,000 miles of river during this Parliament, which is equivalent to the length of the Amazon and the Nile.

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

11. What progress she is making in reducing the burden of regulation on farmers.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

Food and farming are vital to the success of our economy. They generate £100 billion and employ one in eight people. We want to enable farmers to spend their time producing high quality British produce, which is why, by the end of this Parliament, we will have reduced the volume of DEFRA guidance by 80%.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I know that the Government have done more than the previous Labour Administration on tackling regulations on farmers, but there are still many outstanding issues to be addressed. Today, when I spoke to Mr Stuart Jones from Asterley in my constituency, he highlighted additional complications. Will the Secretary of State redouble her efforts to tackle the number of regulations faced by our farmers?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are making our inspection regime much more risk based, so that farmers who do the right thing and who are part of schemes such as Red Tractor or Pig and Poultry get fewer inspections, whereas those who mistreat animals or harm the environment get more of the Government’s attention.

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

The common agricultural policy payment scheme is being used to trial the Government’s new identity assurance scheme, Verify, but actual authentication is carried out by the private sector company, Experian. Farmers without a credit history are not being authenticated and are not getting their payments. Is getting into debt now a new regulation to be followed before farmers can be paid?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are introducing a new scheme. It is important that we do this in an efficient way. We are using and working on a cross-government process to assure identity.

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

The priorities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are: leading the world in food and farming; protecting our country from floods and animal and plant diseases; improving the environment and championing the countryside; and improving rural services. Food and farming are core parts of our long-term economic plan, contributing nearly £100 billion to the economy and employing one in eight people. I am sure that the House will want to join me in celebrating the latest figures that show we are now exporting our world-class food and drink to a record number of markets. That includes more than 1 billion pints of great British beer being sold to 113 countries.

[Mr Brown]

Will the Secretary of State help Britain’s hard-pressed dairy farmers by supporting fixed-price contracts and looking again at the product labelling regime and take some form of supply chain initiative with retailers and processers to dissuade them from, among other things, using liquid milk as a loss-leader?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I met the board of Dairy UK last week. I am keen to work to help our industry become competitive and deal with the increasing exposure to international markets. There are things that can be done on price volatility, and I have spoken to the supermarkets and the intermediaries on the matter.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

T2. I share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) about the UK dairy industry, which is deeply depressed in many parts of the country, and is suffering very large losses. We have an opportunity to debate this matter next week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) has secured a debate on it in Westminster Hall. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that she is meeting those concerns and is fully engaged with this problem, which threatens much of the dairy industry?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am very much engaged with this matter, as is the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). On a positive note, dairy exports have risen by 50% since 2010. I was in Paris last week at the SIAL trade fair—the world’s largest trade fair—and I met representatives from White Farm Cheddar who are now selling their cheese in the Carrefour supermarket chain across France. We have good international prospects for our dairy industry, and we are working hard to open the markets for British producers.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State purports to run a science-based Department, so what evidence did she use to underpin her decision to withdraw CAP payments from farmers with solar panels on their land?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have just said, food and farming is one of our largest industries. It contributes £100 billion to the economy. There are 250,000 hectares of commercial roofs where solar panels can be located, but I do not think it is right that we locate solar panels on productive agricultural land that could be contributing to our economy, and I am sure the hon. Lady would not want that to happen.

[Maria Eagle]

There we have it—the Secretary of State had no underpinning evidence, just an ideological prejudice. Does she not realise, as the National Farmers Union has said, that land can be multifunctional, yielding an agricultural benefit as well as producing energy? At a time when National Grid is having to prepare contingency plans to ration energy use this winter because spare generating capacity is at a seven-year low, does she really think her priority should be cutting Britain’s ability to generate clean electricity? Is not this just another example of the self-styled greenest Government ever now resorting, in the Prime Minister’s words, to getting rid of the “green crap”, regardless of the consequences for our energy security?

[Elizabeth Truss]

This Government have a very good record on the environment. We have seen carbon emissions and air pollution go down and our rivers and water are cleaner. The problem with the hon. Lady’s point is that she does not seem to understand how important food and farming is to the rural economy. Under her Government, she failed to deal with animal diseases and the problems in that industry. The reality is that under this Government, we are seeing production expanding and overseas markets opening, and food and farming is now a much bigger success.

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

T3. Handline mackerel is a superb, sustainably caught fish, and many fishermen from my constituency have been struggling to secure a realistic price during the summer. How are the Government helping Cornish mackerel fishermen, and mackerel and herring fishermen throughout the UK, to combat the Russian trade embargo?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

As a Cornishman, I am well aware of the importance of the handlining mackerel industry in Cornwall. We have managed to secure agreement from the Commission to allow us to bank up to 25% of this year’s quota to next year, to remove some mackerel from the market if necessary. We have also been very successful at reopening the market in Nigeria, which has been a particularly important market for many of our mackerel producers.

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

T4. Last night, young people from Peru told MPs about the dire effects that climate change is having on their agricultural communities, and asked that Governments listen to what people in those communities need. Will the Minister give support to international and national initiatives to tackle climate change once and for all?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady that we do face a threat, and that is why this Government are taking action. The Prime Minister recently did a new deal on targets for carbon emissions. This Government take the issue very seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

Guy Opperman. Not here. Mr Andrew Percy.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am rather pleased he is not here—nothing personal.

May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Humber flood risk strategy, which is a joint strategy supported by all Members of Parliament to get £880 million of investment into the Humber for our defences? The current system does not work for us. We need a specific solution for the Humber.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

My hon. Friend and his colleagues across the House who represent areas in the Humber estuary rightly consistently raise the need to review flood defences there and make sure that we have adequate investment. We will be bringing forward a capital programme alongside the autumn statement, and I know that he and his colleagues are very much pushing the case for investment in his area.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T5. Investing in research is vital if we are to meet the challenges of climate adaptation. Will the Secretary of State be a champion for an increase in our science budget, so that we can encourage innovation in both the public and private sectors?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am very keen on science. It is vital that we use it better across Government. I have had a number of discussions with our chief scientist about our science strategy, which we will be launching in due course. We need science not just for the environment, which is very important, but also for our food and farming industry, and that is why we are sponsoring agri-tech strategies on how to obtain better yields from our crops and use water more effectively. Through better use of science and technology we can see a real improvement to our environment.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

T8. Although west bank residents of the River Severn in Bewdley have benefited from brilliant flood defences, those on the east bank live with the uncertainty of the Environment Agency’s final solution to local flooding. May I urge my right hon. Friend to seriously consider demountable flood barriers to protect the east bank residents of Beales Corner in Bewdley?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am aware that there is a long-standing flooding issue at Beales Corner and that, as my hon. Friend says, the Environment Agency is trialling temporary flood defence barriers there. I understand that the trial is set to continue until 2017 while longer-term solutions are being considered and the agency, quite properly, consults the community, but if my hon. Friend has further concerns and would like to write to me, I would be happy to discuss those with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Michael McCann. He has toddled out of the Chamber. Goodness knows what is going on. Mr Grahame Morris.

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

I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the vital role of the Food and Environment Research Agency in detecting and responding to threats to our natural environment and the food chain, particularly in the light of the UK signing up to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership agreement. Will the right hon. Lady think again about privatising this agency, given its vital role?

[Elizabeth Truss]

That is not what we are doing. We are creating a joint venture. I went to visit FERA in York last week. It is a world-class institution, researching all kinds of things from plant diseases to the security of our food chain, which is very important, so I fully support its efforts. I want to see it much better linked into all the work we do across Government so that we can have a truly science-based strategy.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) raced late into the Chamber like a perspiring postman. It is good of him to drop in on us and now that he has had a chance to recover his breath, let us hear from him.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

T7. After that introduction, Mr Speaker, I hope I do not disappoint, but thank you for calling me, in any event. What steps are being taken to increase the planting of commercial forestry in this country so that we do not face again the problems of yesteryear, and businesses have the timber supply they need?

[Elizabeth Truss]

There is a huge opportunity to expand the market for high-quality British timber, and I am pleased to say that since Grown in Britain started last year, we have seen an 8% increase in the amount of domestic timber and British wood products that we are selling. I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has the very large Kielder forest in his constituency, and I look forward to its future success.

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

If the Secretary of State is so keen on science, why does she not start applying it to the issue of where the birdsongs have gone? Will she look at Caitlin Moran’s recent article on this? The birds are disappearing from our gardens and our countryside, and they have disappeared even faster in the past four years. What is she doing about that with science?

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Some weeks ago I visited the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ farm, Hope farm, up in Cambridgeshire. When we announce our new agri-environment schemes, measures that will support the recovery of farmland birds will certainly be among them.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Tessa Munt.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Secretary of State find out what has happened to the scheduling of payments for higher-level stewardship schemes for farmers in my environmentally sensitive part of Somerset? These have been contracted for a 10-year period but they seem to have been cut, delayed or changed without consultation or notice, and many farmers depend on them for their business.

[George Eustice]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. An important part of the agri-environment scheme in the next few years will be to fund higher-level stewardship schemes to conclusion. If she has particular concerns, I am happy to discuss those with her. There has been some alignment on the start dates of some of the schemes, but I am not aware of any problems with schemes discontinuing.

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

1. What process the commission would expect to be followed to address the recent issues highlighted by the National Audit Office’s recent report, “Managing and removing foreign national offenders”.

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

As the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission is overseas, I have been asked to reply. The Public Accounts Committee is taking evidence on the report next week on 5 November. The normal process would be for that to be followed by a report from the Committee, which the Government would respond to in due course in the form of a Treasury minute.

[Mr Hollobone]

The Leader of the House will be aware that there are far too many foreign national offenders serving their sentences in our prisons who should be serving their sentences in prisons back in their own country. Will he ensure that the Committee has all the resources it needs to expedite its follow-up of this very important report, and that the Government’s response is as speedy as possible?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend knows how seriously the Government take this. Indeed, the NAO report states that the number of removals has increased by 12% over the past two years, the time taken to deport foreign national offenders is reducing and the number of failed removals is decreasing. The Home Secretary has indicated her determination on that. The pursuit of this is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, rather than the Public Accounts Commission, on whose behalf I am answering today. The Government will continue to take this very seriously.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

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

2. What assessment the Church of England has made of the potential effects of clause 2 of the Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure 2014 on women.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

The Church’s memorandum to the Ecclesiastical Committee gave a detailed assessment of that provision. I also refer the hon. Lady to the Lords Hansard report for 14 October, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury ably explained clause 2. I tried to explain it when I took the measure through the House but, given that she has tabled this question, clearly I lamentably failed.

[Diana Johnson]

I welcome the fact that we have recently had this long overdue Measure through Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that I have put in an early bid for the Bishop of Hull to be a woman. However, I am concerned about clause 2. Does he share my concern that this country’s established Church will not be governed by the laws of this land? I think that it is a very odd situation for the established Church to be in.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

We are very much governed by the laws of this land, which is why the Measure had to go to the Ecclesiastical Committee, a statutory Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and then had to be approved by both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and last week you, Mr Speaker, announced that it had been granted Royal Assent. Had the hon. Lady had serious concerns about clause 2, she could have raised them in the debate—[Interruption.] Yes, she did raise them, but if I had not managed to assuage those concerns for her and the House sufficiently, she could have divided the House on the matter. Parliament has now agreed to the Measure and—this is the substantive point—the only reason it is here is to help ensure that the arrangements work; it is not putting the Church of England outside gender and equality legislation. Were it to do so, I have absolutely no doubt that the Government would have opposed it.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

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

3. What estimate the commission has made of the number of postal votes that arrived late and were not included in the official count at recent elections.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

I am about to give a surprising response, Mr Speaker. The number of postal votes received by returning officers after close of poll at the May 2014 European Parliament elections was 51,790, compared with just under 5 million postal votes returned before close of poll—around 1% of the total. Similar electoral data from all major elections since 2004 can be accessed on the commission’s website, and I will ask the commission to write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library.

[Mr Nuttall]

Bearing in mind the larger turnout we can expect at next year’s general election, that means that around 100,000 people are likely to return their votes, thinking that they have voted, but in fact they will never be counted. Is there anything the Electoral Commission can do to try to improve that state of affairs?

[Mr Streeter]

There is an onus on all of us to get the message to our constituents that anyone voting by post should ensure that they get their postal vote away in good time, especially if they are voting from overseas. All electoral registration officers can make an arrangement with the Royal Mail so that all postal votes in the sorting office on polling day are collected and taken to the returning officer. I think that it is important that all EROs enter into such arrangements.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

In 2012 the law was changed to allow returning officers to write to people whose postal votes were rejected because of signature or date of birth errors. Surely it would make sense to allow them to write to those whose postal votes were returned late to notify them and help ensure that they do not do it again.

[Mr Streeter]

That is an excellent suggestion. It is not currently done, but I will certainly take it back to the commission so that it can pass it on to returning officers.

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

How many people living overseas are eligible to register, and of those how many are listed to vote but are too late to get a vote through the post?

[Mr Streeter]

About 3.5 million Brits live overseas and are entitled to register to vote. I do not have the figure relating to my hon. Friend’s second question—that is shameful and disgraceful on my part, and I will certainly write to him about it. The good news is that overseas voters can now register to vote online. That has never happened before. We can get the message out to people in that category that they can register online, which will make the process a great deal easier and much more rapid.

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

4. What steps the Church of England is taking to help tackle extremism in the UK and overseas.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

9. What steps the Church of England is taking to help tackle extremism in the UK and overseas.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

The Church of England is taking a significant role in tackling extremism by supporting the work of the Government and by working through its own networks of local communities and the wider international Anglican communion.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the sentence of death by hanging announced last week on Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five young children who has already spent four years in jail in Pakistan under that country’s unacceptable blasphemy laws? Will my right hon. Friend join me and others in the House in sending out a clear message to the Government of Pakistan that they must review this case?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. This is a terrible, grim and desperate case. I fear that it is a stain on the reputation of Pakistan that this young woman should have been in prison for such a long time.

Far too often around the world, cases of apostasy and the way in which blasphemy laws are used in some cases, as in Pakistan, are a complete offence against the principles of the United Nations charter on freedom of religion. We all need to take every opportunity to express to the Pakistani high commissioner in London and the Government of Pakistan how desperate and sad the world is to see that Pakistan has not managed to resolve that case more swiftly.

[Andrew Stephenson]

One of the biggest concerns of the Christian Churches in Pendle at the moment is the persecution of Christian communities by ISIS. Has the Church of England made any assessment of the threat of ISIS to religious minorities in the region?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Only the other day, the Archbishop of Canterbury commented that Christianity is at risk of being completely eliminated from the whole of the Levant. I know that he is in discussions with faith leaders from across the middle east to see how we can work together to try to ensure that some religious tolerance returns as swiftly as possible.

The situation is desperate: the world appears to be going backwards, away from the high principles of the United Nations charter of 1945 and towards a situation in which intolerance, rather than tolerance, is increasingly becoming the norm.

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

5. How many episcopal vacancies he expects there to be in the next 12 months.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

Between December and July, the Crown Nominations Commission is due to consider appointments to four vacant diocesan sees: Southwell and Nottingham, Gloucester, Oxford, and Newcastle. In addition, nine of the Church’s 68 suffragan sees are either vacant or due to become vacant over the coming months.

[Mr Sheerman]

I do not suppose that the Church Commissioners can do anything to recognise the wonderful work by Huddersfield doctor Geraldine O’Hara. Many of us will have heard her diary from Sierra Leone. However, the House could recognise what she is doing. The Church Commissioners can recognise another woman, Catherine Ogle, the dean of Birmingham, who I believe should be an early candidate for bishop.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

There are a number of very impressive senior women in the Church of England, including cathedral deans such as the one to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. There are also women archdeacons and others who I am sure will be in contention for early appointment as women bishops in the Church of England.

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

6. What guidance the commissioners follow when making investments; and if he will make a statement.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry)]

The investments of the Church Commissioners are the responsibility of the assets committee. They are guided by a professional investment team supported by external advisers and the advice of the Church of England ethical investment advisory group.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I still seek what guidance and criteria the Church Commissioners follow. What is the level of investment income from Church of England investments as regards the overall revenue?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The Church Commissioners have investments of just over £6 billion. From that is generated an annual income of about £100 million, most of which is devoted to clergy pensions, and the rest to helping poorer dioceses across the country, such as Durham and Liverpool, and supporting their mission work. The Church Commissioners are advised by the Ethical Investment Advisory Group. I assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that we take considerable care to monitor any investment that might have an effect in these areas: tobacco, defence, non-military firearms, gambling, pornography, high interest rate lending, stem cell research, alcohol, and genetically modified organisms. For each and every one of those, the assets committee and the Ethical Investment Advisory Group spend hours and hours working to produce detailed policy to try and ensure not only that we do not invest inappropriately but that we use our investments to encourage companies to act responsibly.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I think that the Church of England believes in having partnerships of constructive engagement with the companies in which it invests. Therefore, will the Church Commissioners, first, call for SOCO International, an oil and gas exploration firm in which it has shares, to launch an independent investigation into the allegations of corruption and violence that it has attracted in its dealings with the Virunga national park in Democratic Republic of the Congo; and secondly, explain how this investment aligns with the Christian values of the Church?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not give me notice of that question, because had she done so I could then have given her a substantive response. I know nothing of the facts of the investment, but I will make inquiries and write to her.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman should take it as a compliment that the hon. Lady assumed that on this matter, as on most others that are raised with him, his knowledge is compendious.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Sadly, as I keep on telling my constituents, Mr Speaker, I am neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

[Mr Speaker]

That may be a divisible proposition.

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

7. What recent progress has been made in the transition to individual voter registration in Scotland.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Owing to the recent referendum, the transition to individual voter registration in Scotland started only on 19 September. The commission will report on initial progress of the transition in November, with similar information to be published on its recent analysis of progress made in England and Wales, where 87% of electors were matched and can be automatically transferred to the new register.

[Ann McKechin]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer. Unfortunately, I have wards in my constituency where fewer than 50% of people were successfully matched. Given that record numbers registered for and participated in last month’s referendum, including, particularly, 16 and 17-year-olds, what steps will be taken to ensure that young people are encouraged to do individual voter registration if they are not properly matched under the existing arrangements?

[Mr Streeter]

I can give an assurance to the hon. Lady. First, as I said earlier, it is now possible to register online, and for younger people, in particular, that is now very easy to do. Secondly, a public awareness campaign has been launched in Scotland, as I hope that many of her constituents are aware. Finally, and crucially, no one will come off the register between now and May 2015. If they are on the register today—or were on it a month or two months ago—they will be able to vote in May 2015. That is an important message.

Refugees and Migrants (Search and Rescue Operation)

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

10:32

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on why the Government have decided not to support search and rescue operations for refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean.

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

The United Kingdom has a long and proud tradition of providing sanctuary to those who genuinely need it. We work closely with our European neighbours to provide assistance to those fleeing fear or persecution and to deter those whose criminal actions stand in the way of providing effective help.

The scenes we have witnessed in the Mediterranean in recent months, with people risking their lives to reach Europe, are hugely distressing. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that over 3,000 people have already died attempting to cross the Mediterranean this year, compared with some 700 deaths in the whole of last year. When people are risking life and limb—not just their own, but those of their loved ones too—it is clear that they are caught in a desperate situation. Nobody underestimates the sincerity of their plight. It demands an equally sincere approach from the governments of European nations, and that is what it has been getting.

Since Italy launched its Mare Nostrum operation in October 2013, there has been an unprecedented increase in illegal immigration across the Mediterranean and a fourfold increase in the deaths of those making that perilous journey. The operation has been drawn closer and closer to the Libyan shore, as traffickers have taken advantage of the situation by placing more vulnerable people in unseaworthy boats on the basis that they will be rescued and taken to Italy. However, many are not rescued, which is why we believe that the operation is having the unintended consequence of placing more lives at risk, and why EU member states have unanimously agreed that the operation should be promptly phased out.

It is, of course, vital that this phasing out is well managed and well publicised, to mitigate the risk of further deaths. It is vital that we continue to take action to provide real help to those who genuinely need it.

We have made clear our view that the only sustainable answer to the current situation in the Mediterranean is to enhance operational co-operation within the EU; work with the countries of origin and transit to tackle the causes of illegal immigration and the organised gangs that facilitate it; and enhance support for protection in north and east Africa for those in need.

We have agreed to a request from Frontex—the EU’s border management agency—to deploy a debriefing expert in support of the new Frontex Operation Triton off the southern Italian coast. This operation is not designed to replace Mare Nostrum, but will instead patrol closer to EU borders. We stand ready to consider any further request for UK support for the new Frontex operation.

The UK is also among those member states offering substantial numbers of resettlement places for refugees from outside the EU—more than 4,000 between 2008 and 2013—working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In close partnership with other member states, we are developing a strong programme of work to tackle the causes of migration from the horn of Africa, including through investment in regional protection programmes.

It is not in the interests of anyone—most especially those who are genuinely fleeing persecution—if European countries have an uncontrolled and ineffective approach to immigration and asylum. It is not in the interests of anyone if the criminal gangs that exploit the fear and suffering of vulnerable people—endangering human lives for cold, hard cash—are allowed to continue their despicable work unimpeded. It is not in the interests of anyone if we fail to adapt to a situation which encourages more and more people to make that dangerous journey across the seas. That is why member states across the EU have unanimously agreed to act—to defend our borders, crack down on crime and protect those who so desperately need our protection.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The Minister knows that many of those seeking to make the journey are fleeing war, poverty and starvation in places such as Syria and Libya. They know already that the risks of dying en route are high. They are exploited by people traffickers, as the Minister has accepted, and if they are picked up by European navies or border control, they know they will not be given free entry to Europe, but are likely to end up in a detention centre in Italy or to be sent back to their country of origin. Surely it is obvious that these refugees and migrants are desperate given that they are still prepared to make these terrible journeys. The idea that search and rescue operations should be discontinued and that people should be left to die in their thousands—presumably in order to discourage others from making the journey—is not just cruel and inhumane, but totally without logic

Is not the right response for Europe as a whole to support a comprehensive search and rescue operation for refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean? Will the Government now reconsider their position and try to persuade other European nations to bring that about? Why do the Government not listen to the refugee agencies when they say that the real answer to the problem is to provide more safe and legal channels for people to access protection?

This policy is shameful. Surely, when we know that hundreds of our fellow human beings face a terrible death and it is in our power to do something about it, it is our moral duty to act. And if we fail to do so, are we not complicit in their deaths?

[James Brokenshire]

I am very proud of this Government’s humanitarian work. The investment we have provided for places such as Syria—we have committed about £700 million to the aid effort that is providing direct assistance to those in need—reflects our response. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of search and rescue operations, but I want to highlight the fact that such matters are for individual member states in respect of their territorial waters. It is ultimately for Italy to decide how it conducts its search and rescue operations.

The Frontex operation, which I have outlined, provides surveillance capability and other support at the border. I find it inconceivable—the head of Frontex has said the same—that support would not be provided if a boat were in peril. Obviously, a rescue would be undertaken in those circumstances.

The Government’s view is that, because of the situation in various parts of the region, a regional solution is required. I have already made the point that assistance is required to prevent people from making such perilous journeys. The judgment of the UK Government and other Governments across the EU is that the emergency measures should be stopped at the earliest opportunity. Ultimately, we want to do something that helps, but sadly, in our judgment, the emergency measures are not achieving that end.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I commend the Minister for his statement, which, to be perfectly honest, was full of common sense. Is it not the case that since the search and rescue operation began, more and more people have tried their luck, with the result that there has been more and more illegal immigration and more and more deaths? The solution must therefore be to stop the search and rescue operation. Does he agree that the message that should go out from this House is not about restoring the operation, but about telling people to stop trying their luck in the first place?

[James Brokenshire]

Our genuine concern has been to provide solutions to prevent people from making those perilous journeys. As I said in my statement, the sad reality is that the number of those who have died in the Mediterranean sea has increased since the introduction of the Mare Nostrum operation. It is therefore right to look at what assistance can be provided on north African borders through direct aid, and at what further assistance the European External Action Service can give for such solutions. The approach of the Government and of other EU member states is about saving lives, not putting them in peril.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for securing the urgent question, and the Minister for his response.

After days of silence, it is absolutely right that the Government should come to the House and answer for their decision to abandon search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. No one is suggesting that the problem of migrants entering Europe from north Africa and the middle east does not need to be addressed, but leaving people to die in their thousands is not the answer.

This year alone 150,000 people have been rescued in the Mediterranean and, as the Minister said, 3,000 people—3,000 men, women and children—have died on their way over. Most of them were fleeing desperate poverty or war zones, and many of them were under the control of human traffickers. Instead of trying to reduce this appalling loss of life, the Government have decided to allow it to increase. The 150,000 people rescued this year will in future be left at the mercy of the sea: if their overcrowded, decrepit boat sinks, they will be left to drown. This is a barbaric abandonment of British values.

Moreover, this decision was taken to distract from a failed immigration policy. With a net migration target in tatters, border security downgraded, a crisis at Calais to which the Government have no answer and in desperation at the prospect of a by-election loss to UKIP, the Government needed to be seen doing something—anything—to appear tough on immigration, but it will not be effective. The Government have provided no evidence that abandoning rescue missions will reduce the number of people getting on the boats. When will the Government publish the evidence and the impact assessment?

Many of the individuals concerned have no choice in the matter because they are under the control of human traffickers, as has been said. What is being done, therefore, to tackle trafficking gangs in north Africa and southern Europe?

The Government need to start working with our European partners to address the so-called pull factors. Once people are on a boat and are drowning off the coast of Italy, it is too late. We need to intervene far earlier, so when does the Minister next plan to meet his EU counterparts to discuss the matter?

We must remember that Operation Triton is not only about attempting to stop those who make the dangerous journey to Europe in boats coming to harm, but about protecting our borders. Will the Minister confirm the reports that the Government are providing just one immigration officer to gather intelligence about those who arrive in Italy by sea? That seems to be totally inadequate. We need to know what more the Government intend to do to play their part in making Operation Triton a viable alternative to search and rescue.

Rescuing people who are in danger of drowning is a legal obligation under international maritime law, as is set out in the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The Government may be abandoning their efforts in that regard, but what will happen to commercial boats that intervene, as they are obliged to do?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady has sought to politicise this issue in a way that does not reflect the intent or focus of the Government.

I say to the hon. Lady clearly that the people who are responsible for the deaths of those at sea are the organised traffickers who seek to exploit the vulnerable by putting them in increasing numbers on boats that are entirely unseaworthy. Our judgment is that extending the emergency measures has encouraged that and put more lives at risk. That is our primary focus. Indeed, it is the focus not simply of the UK Government, but the unanimous conclusion of all 28 member states of the EU.

The hon. Lady made an appropriate point about intervening earlier and looking overseas at the flows of people across borders far from the Mediterranean sea. That is why I made the point about the aid, assistance and political leadership that the UK provides in that work. She asked when we would meet other European Ministers. The Italian Government will host a conference in the coming weeks to look at these very issues around the horn of Africa. We look forward to attending and supporting that conference.

The hon. Lady asked about the support that the British Government are providing to Frontex. I want to make it clear that the UK is not a fully participating member of Frontex because it is not in the Schengen area, and Frontex is an EU body that is designed to safeguard that area. However, we have always sought to respond as favourably as we can to any requests that Frontex makes of the UK. Indeed, the expert to whom she referred is being provided as a consequence of the requests that we have received from Frontex to date. We stand ready to look favourably on any further requests that Frontex may wish to make of the UK Government in support of Operation Triton.

I say again that the focus of the Government is not on short-term political issues, but on examining what will make a difference in the region and providing the necessary humanitarian support. Our judgment is that the steps that are being taken are about saving lives, not putting lives at risk.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

Claiming that rescuing people from drowning in the sea is somehow a pull factor for people who are fleeing war is an absurd and deeply unethical thing for the Government to do. Can the Government not see that more people are travelling because half of the middle east is burning? Has the Minister not seen the advice of his own Foreign Office? We cannot wash our hands of these people, Pontius Pilate-style. If we are to prevent people from boarding rickety boats and drowning at sea, we will have to work with our European colleagues and find safe routes of travel. Can the Minister not see that he has lost any sense of ethical reasoning here?

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely reject the analysis that my hon. Friend seeks to proffer in this regard. No one is turning a blind eye to humanitarian issues or needs. The purpose of the actions being taken is to put fewer lives at risk, and I am sorry that she is unable to accept the clear purpose of what we are undertaking. On the idea that boats in need of assistance would simply be ignored, I point her to the head of Frontex who said that if a boat in distress is spotted, rescue is the top priority. I am sure that that is precisely what will happen.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The mayor of Calais told the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday that the destination of choice for many who arrive in Italy is Calais and after that London, and £12 million has been allocated in Calais. The unintended consequences of not allocating support will be that more people will die in the Mediterranean. I understand why the Minister does not want to give succour to people traffickers, but that is what will happen. The real problem is the failure of Frontex to act appropriately to ensure that the borders are secure. He will see that at the Greek-Turkish border, and at Melilla in Morocco where people are climbing over the fence that the Spanish have put up, this issue will remain a problem. When he goes to Rome will he please also visit Lampedusa and ensure that the real long-term solution is with the countries of north Africa? We must support them in preventing people from leaving in the first place, and that is where our focus should be.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I commend him and members of his Committee for the focus they have attached to this issue. I know they have undertaken a number of visits to the region to see the situation for themselves. He is right to say that the solutions lie in north Africa, which is why I made a point about the need for focus and attention there. The mayor of Calais characterised the UK as the primary destination, but let us analyse where asylum applications are being made. The UK anticipates around 25,000 applications this year, but France anticipates around 65,000, Sweden around 80,000, and Germany more than 200,000. This is an issue for the whole EU, and it is important, as I have said, to continue to work together to find solutions.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The flow of migrants across the Mediterranean is now more than just a trickle, and the Minister is right, as is the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), to say that the solution is to work on the causes of migration. I commend to the Minister the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on instability in north and west Africa, and I put to him a question posed in that report that did not get a very clear answer: if a British warship finds a boatload of refugees in the middle of the Mediterranean, is the policy to escort it back to north Africa, or to usher it into a European port?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee in looking at the pressures in north Africa and across the region. We have a keen focus on and interest in the Committee’s reports and recommendations. On identifying and rescuing boats at sea, clearly if vessels are in the territorial waters of a particular country I would expect the normal rules of the sea to apply. That is why Frontex, with its mission to protect the security of the external European border, will focus on the 30-mile limit off the Italian coast.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that, for many British people, including those who share his concern about protecting our borders, the decision on search and rescue represents a new low? Of course the solution to those problems lies in north Africa, and of course there must be a regional solution, but consciously pursuing a policy that will allow people to drown should play no part in protecting Europe’s borders. Some of us are reminded of nothing more than the Exodus, the boat that, at the end of the second world war, tried to take Jewish refugees to Palestine and was turned away by the British Government on precisely the kind of realpolitik grounds the Minister has advanced this morning. Just as people look back in shame at what we did in relation to the Exodus and the fleeing Jewish refugees, we will look back in shame on the decision he is trying to defend today.

[James Brokenshire]

I respect the hon. Lady’s passion and that of other hon. Members, but the harsh reality is that more people are dying in the Mediterranean following the introduction of Mare Nostrum and the emergency measures. If we want solutions that save lives, we need to examine different options and alternatives. Not just the UK Government but 28 other EU member states have come to that same conclusion. The measure cannot therefore be characterised as a specific action of the UK Government. There has been an EU-wide recognition that things are simply not working and not saving lives. The very thing that the hon. Lady wants achieved is what we want: we want fewer lives lost and to ensure that fewer people head out to sea in dangerous boats. That is why I make the points about going after organised traffickers, and about finding a regional solution in north Africa and elsewhere.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on reducing the push factors that drive a lot of immigrants to Europe, by our expenditure through the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to improve governance in Africa, but may I also challenge the Minister? Does he believe that the evil people traffickers are likely to issue a press release saying, “If you make this journey in future, you are unlikely to be rescued”? Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) from the Opposition Front Bench, does the Minister share my concern that there might be an international lawsuit against this country and possibly Europe through the UN convention on the law of the sea and the International Maritime Organisation sea regulations? The IMO is the only UN body, and it is based just 1 mile from Parliament.

[James Brokenshire]

I do not underestimate the sheer evil of the traffickers. They exploit the vulnerable and put them to sea in boats that are not seaworthy and are not necessarily able to reach the shores of the European Union. That is why I was clear in my statement about ensuring that the changes are well communicated and well understood. That must be part of the approach. Rescuing people at sea is a member state competence, not an EU competence, so it will always be for individual member states to ensure that search and rescue operations are undertaken appropriately, in accordance with the normal laws of the sea.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I do not think I have heard a more shameful statement from this Government. This is where we are: this poisonous debate about immigration—this monstrous race to the bottom between the Government and the UKIP as to who can be hardest on immigration—is leaving people to die in the Mediterranean. Is the Minister not absolutely ashamed of himself?

[James Brokenshire]

The only shameful thing I have heard is the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The debate has been impassioned, but there has been an understanding of the challenges that individual Governments face in seeking to address a problem that has got worse. We argue that the steps that have been taken have not assisted in the way that was intended. We cannot turn our eyes away from a situation that is getting worse and not better. That is why we focus on steps to ensure that regional solutions are established and supported, and that we have an external border that is surveilled through Frontex. If boats are identified as in need of assistance, that is what will happen.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Am I right in thinking that this was a unanimous decision by all Home Affairs and Justice Ministers throughout the European Union at a Justice and Home Affairs Council? Labour, Liberal and Scottish National another party colleagues who oppose this are actually out of step with every Government—left, right or centre—in the EU. It was never the intention of the United Nations convention on refugees, which was brought in just after the second world war, automatically to give indefinite leave to remain to anyone trafficked from a third country into Europe.

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend makes a clear point. This did arise from the most recent Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, and it was the unanimous conclusion of 28 member states across the EU. Frankly, to characterise this as a short-term political issue completely misses the point and does not have proper regard for those who are in peril and fleeing persecution.

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

Everyone condemns the criminal gangs and everyone would like to see people discouraged from coming to Europe for obvious reasons, but is the Minister aware that this policy will be summed up in three words, namely: let them drown?

[James Brokenshire]

No, I do not accept that. We will see Frontex, through Operation Triton, conducting surveillance operations around the coast of Italy. Matters of search and rescue remain with Italy and other member states in respect of their territorial waters. They will remain a matter for the Italian Government, who I am sure will take their responsibilities extremely seriously.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

In 2005, the European Union unanimously pledged to give 0.7% of gross national income to overseas development assistance. The EU, with the honourable exception of the UK and a number of other countries, will singularly fail to meet that pledge. Is today’s announcement not putting the cart before the horse? Should the EU not be investing in measures such as those outlined by the Minister before withdrawing support? I ask him to think again. The EU needs to fulfil the pledges it solemnly made in 2005 and ensure that work is done in north Africa before this kind of support is withdrawn.

[James Brokenshire]

To be clear, the EU is not withdrawing anything. Mare Nostrum is an Italian initiative. It is supported by the Italian navy, and ultimately decisions will be taken by the Italian Government. However, my hon. Friend makes a profound and important point about the responsibility of all Governments in the EU to look at international development in the way that we have: state-building and providing long-term solutions, as well as ensuring that clear messages are sent and clear policies are undertaken bilaterally, or through the external action service of the EU, to do the very things he has outlined.

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

Why can the Minister not see that it is not a case of either addressing the causes in north Africa or dealing with the consequences now, but a question of both? The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) mentioned the International Maritime Organisation. Why can the Minister not also see that this is not simply an issue for nation states? It is an issue that needs to be addressed across the EU, and the Government should be playing their part. On the so-called pull factor, that is an argument that could have been used to discourage people from setting up the Kindertransport before the second world war.

[James Brokenshire]

We play our part within the EU. We continue to lead discussions with individual member states and across the EU membership on long-term and short-term solutions to why people are getting on those boats and to the transit of people across nations to the north African coast. We take that responsibility very seriously, backed up not just by rhetoric but by investment through our international development focus and the money provided to support it. We stand proud of the UK Government’s record in providing that assistance.

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

It would help to reduce the attractiveness of this country as a destination for illegal immigrants if being an illegal immigrant was made a specific criminal offence, as provided for in the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), the Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s support for that measure?

[James Brokenshire]

Our focus is on ensuring that we have strong and effective borders, which is precisely what our Border Force is doing, with more checks undertaken under this Government than under the previous Government. We are also focused on ensuring that where people are not here legally—when they come to this country and are not found to be in need of humanitarian protection—we put in place measures to see that they are returned. Indeed, I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise the work done under the Immigration Act 2014 to achieve precisely that: to ensure that, through measures on rented accommodation, bank accounts, driving licences and other issues, the very steps he is advocating are actively assisted.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The coincidence of events does not necessarily prove a causal link. The Minister has told us that he believes the search and rescue operation has increased the number of people trying to cross the Mediterranean, but this is during a period when unrest and wars have continued to grow. Can he prove there is a causal link? Should he not get the evidence first before acting?

[James Brokenshire]

We expressed our concerns and reservations in respect of those very issues in advance of the introduction of Mare Nostrum, but we are not talking about the assessment simply of the UK Government; we are talking about the assessment of 28 member states across the EU that have come to that conclusion.

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

I speak on this issue having experienced both sides of the coin as an east African Sikh. With all the emotionally charged comments we have heard in the Chamber today, it would be helpful to remind Opposition Members that many of us of Indian descent who came out of Africa were not particularly proud of the fact that we were promised British passports and were then faced with a Labour Home Secretary who, when push came to shove, pulled up the drawbridge.

As for today’s issue, as a constituency MP in Wolverhampton, I am struck by the size of the backlog of cases that immigration staff have to deal with. Will the Minister update the House on the legacy bequeathed to us by the last Government, not just in the economy but in terms of immigration and asylum cases?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting his direct personal experience and the need for care to be taken in the tone we use. I am sorry that some have sought to characterise this issue in the way they have. He is also right to underline the shambles that this Government inherited and the steps we have taken to deal with the problems. The situation is improving and we are dealing with the backlogs—something that was simply ignored by the last Government, who were incapable of dealing with them.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

This is indeed a shameful decision. How many lives does the Minister estimate will be saved as a result of abandoning search and rescue missions?

[James Brokenshire]

The reality, as I have already indicated, is that more lives have been lost to date this year than were lost in 2013. Our focus is on ensuring that this is about reducing the tragic human cost we see in the Mediterranean sea. If we can telegraph that clear message to the traffickers in north Africa who are exploiting very vulnerable people, I absolutely believe that is the right thing to do to save lives.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The wars in the middle east and consequent humanitarian situation are so dire there that Europe is unlikely to have an impact on the push factors in the near term. The pressures on countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey and the refugee crisis there surely mean that Europe needs to face up to its responsibilities better than it has done to date. I welcomed what the Minister said about co-operation with UNHCR and getting more placements here in the UK. Will he add some detail to that announcement?

[James Brokenshire]

On the latter point, we work closely with UNHCR, in connection with the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, for example. We work with it in identifying those most acutely in need of help and assistance. It is a good partnership and I think it is effective. On the broader issue of various middle east countries, my hon. Friend is right to underline the contributions that need to be made by all European Governments. I certainly stand proud when it comes to the work of the Department for International Development, which is contributing £145 million to the Arab Partnership programme, with the aim of supporting a more stable and prosperous middle east and north Africa.

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

I am not going to beat the Minister over the head about this, because Members on all sides of the House share a great responsibility for the turmoil in the middle east and other places, which has caused much of the migration in the first place. I would say, however, that morally I cannot stand by without saying that I think it is repugnant that we leave children and families to perish in this way. What I dislike is that we do not have an alternative positive policy. We know the point of embarkation for many people—often Libya—so why can we not have a European partnership to tackle the problem proactively?

[James Brokenshire]

That is precisely what is happening through the work of member states and, indeed, our Foreign Office and DFID. The harsh reality is that we are seeing those deaths at sea. Our judgment is that extending the search and rescue approach that has been taken close to the Libyan coast will mean more people putting out to sea in less seaworthy boats in greater numbers. That is making the situation worse.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Since Mare Nostrum was established some 12 months ago, 3,000 or more people have lost their lives, notwithstanding the presence of more than 30 Italian vessels patrolling the Mediterranean sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that the root cause of the problem is the activities of the people traffickers and that one of the best services that both this country and the EU could perform would be to conduct an information campaign in north Africa to try to inform and persuade people that if they put their lives in the hands of these people, they will very likely end up losing them?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my right hon. Friend on the messaging and communication around the strategy. However, I say to him most acutely that the organised traffickers are absolutely responsible for the exploitation of the vulnerable, leading to the deaths of scores of people. That is why we are working very closely with a number of European nations to step up our intelligence sharing and actively to go after those organised crime groups that are trading in human misery.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

In all my years in academic philosophy, I never heard such sophistry as I have heard from the Minister today. The solution is of course on the north African coast, but if that is the case, that solution must be implemented so that people do not leave in droves before the safety net is taken up. Why is the Minister taking the safety net away while people are still falling out of a burning building?

[James Brokenshire]

It is for the Italian Government to determine, as they are the lead in the search and rescue operations off their coast, when Mare Nostrum is or is not terminated. It is ultimately a matter for them. As I have underlined on a number of occasions, this Government are not turning a blind eye to any of the humanitarian suffering. That is why we stand ready to support Frontex on Operation Triton and to take the lead on communications around the approach. I say again that the reality—the harsh reality—is that the current arrangements are, in our judgment, making matters worse, and that is what drives our approach.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

Over the summer, the UNHCR drew attention to an increase in the number of deaths following the introduction of Mare Nostrum in October last year. Has the UNHCR made any comments since the announcement of the changes?

[James Brokenshire]

I am aware of a number of points that have been made in this House and by other agencies. We are keen to ensure that the approach is well communicated and well addressed. Our focus, and the focus of the aid agencies and the UNHCR, is on saving lives. That is the Government’s motivation, and the motivation of many other agencies.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

In response to the question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), the Minister referred to the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme. It has been reported that, under that scheme, just 50 of the people who have had to flee their homes and their country have been given safe haven in the United Kingdom—just 50 of the 3 million refugees who have had to flee Syria as a result of this crisis. The Minister is a decent man. Why does he not want the United Kingdom to do more to give those who are fleeing brutality a safe and legal route to this country?

[James Brokenshire]

I respect the manner in which the hon. Lady has asked her question, but the United Kingdom is playing its full role. For instance, we have invested £700 million in the region, because given the numbers that are involved, a regional solution is required. That money is providing direct support for hundreds of thousands of people in the region who are in desperate need of assistance. Our Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme is intended to assist those who are most acutely in need of help; we have said that it will provide assistance for several hundred people over the next three years, and that is precisely what it is doing.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

It is clear that the EU’s external frontier is as leaky as a sieve—whether we are talking about the land border with the ex-Soviet Union, the islands between Greece and Turkey, or the Mediterranean coast off north Africa—and that Frontex is a highly dysfunctional organisation. Surely part of the solution would be an effective policing operation off the north African coast, using close-to-shore patrol vessels. Frontex should be encouraged to work with the north African Governments to register such vessels under north African flags, so that people can be caught close to the shore and returned to their countries of origin.

[James Brokenshire]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but Frontex adds an important element in respect of the Schengen external border—the EU border—and the establishment of Operation Triton. As I have said, the United Kingdom stands ready to support any requests that may be received, and we will consider such requests very carefully. We are not a full member of Frontex, but it is important that there is that continued focus on ensuring that the EU’s external borders are properly maintained.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Lest we forget, this Government, supported by Her Majesty’s Opposition, backed military intervention in Libya. The people who are drowning in the Mediterranean are fleeing the chaos in that country. Is there not a simple moral imperative? Do we not have a moral obligation to those people until there is a stable Government in Libya?

[James Brokenshire]

As has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is the Minister with responsibility for north Africa, we are focusing very directly on north Africa, and on Libya in particular. We have a nominated representative to lead that activity after 40 years of misrule in the country. As I have said, Frontex is providing support at the external border through Operation Triton, and it is the Italian Government, not the EU, who are actively providing search and rescue assistance. That applies in the case of all member states. Ultimately, it is the Italian Government who will decide on matters relating to their own territorial waters.

Business of the House

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

11:19

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 3 November—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Recall of MPs Bill, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill.

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—General debate on UK foreign policy towards Iran followed by general debate on promotion of the living wage. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 November will include:

Monday 10 November—Remaining stages of the Childcare Payments Bill.

Tuesday 11 November—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Colleagues will also wish to know that the House will meet at 12 o’clock on this day.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 6 November will be:

Thursday 6 November—General debate on the US-UK mutual defence agreement.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I also thank him for the challenge he sets me each week to find much Government legislation to talk about.

On Monday, the Justice Secretary’s plan to block any dissent through the courts was halted in the other place as the Government lost three key votes. A brace of Tory ex-Cabinet Ministers backed our amendments to maintain some legal discretion by judicial review, and a former Lord Chief Justice described the Government’s preferred alternative as an “elective dictatorship”.

We all know that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has been openly conniving with the United Kingdom Independence party to subject the European arrest warrant to judicial review when it is reintroduced. Only this Prime Minister could try to solve the latest challenge to his authority from the Eurosceptics by seeking to abolish judicial review rather than by containing the antics of the hon. Member for North East Somerset. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will now acknowledge that they have gone too far on judicial review and accept our amendments?

Tuesday is equal pay day—the day when women effectively stop being paid for the rest of the year because of the gender pay gap. The picture is bleak. The pay gap is at 20% and widening, women are earning less than they were a year ago, and the UK has crashed down the world gender equality rankings to 26th place. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister has refused to wear a Fawcett feminist T-shirt. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on this Government’s dire record on women, and will he wear the T-shirt?

With 21 days to go to the by-election in Rochester and Strood, the panic has clearly set in and the work of Government seems to have been wholly subordinated to Tory attempts to outflank UKIP on Europe. We have had the tantalising, and as yet unfulfilled, promise of yet another “game-changing” European announcement from the Prime Minister. We have had his unconvincing Mr Angry performance in Brussels on the €2 billion bill that the Chancellor forgot to tell him about. And we all know that half his parliamentary party seem content to put our security at risk by plotting to sink the European arrest warrant in a move that his former immigration Minister says would make us the “Costa del Crime”. Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised a vote on the European arrest warrant before the by-election. The Leader of the House has just announced business up to 17 November, which is just three days before the by-election, so will he tell us when the vote will actually take place? Given that the Prime Minister has totally lost control of his party, Labour Members need plenty of notice to ensure that UK security is not sacrificed on the altar of the Tory civil war.

I note the mysterious absence in the future business of any reference to the European Union (Referendum) Bill. However, I have managed to get my hands on a couple of letters that shed some light on this mystery. On Tuesday afternoon, the Tory Chief Whip wrote to his ever loyal flock announcing:

“Today the Liberal Democrats have killed the EU Referendum Bill”.

In retaliation, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats wrote to all Tory MPs stating:

“This claim is utterly false”.

What a sad state of affairs: in four and a half years they have gone from fluttering eyelashes in the rose garden to an exchange of “Dear John” letters. But the problem with all this is that no one seems to have bothered to tell the House what on earth is going on. Genuinely important Bills are being held up by this farce, so can the Leader of the House confirm that these two Bills are now dead, in order that there can be progress on the others? If the European Union (Referendum) Bill was so important, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, in the words of his coalition colleagues, the Prime Minister

“folded like a cheap deckchair”

at the first opportunity in the negotiation that could have ensured its passage?

Last week, I was harsh on the Chief Whip for his absence from the Chamber—I note his absence again today. I have since discovered that he was learning some skills to help him with the job—at the Westminster dog of the year competition. May I congratulate him on coming second with his dog Snowy, which he described as “naughty, stubborn and greedy”. That sounds a lot like his Tory Back Benchers. Members are fleeing the kennel to UKIP, the Eurosceptics are straining at the leash and Lynton Crosby has sent the dog whistle into overdrive. Anyone who would vote for this lot must be barking.

[Mr Hague]

Let me turn to the serious parts of the questions first. The hon. Lady asked about what she called the “absence” of legislation. If we look at the business I have just announced, we see that it includes the Recall of MPs Bill, the Modern Slavery Bill, which is of global importance, the Childcare Payments Bill, which will be of enormous help to many people in this country, and the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which, as with any matter of taxation, is extremely important. That is the business of the House in just the next 10 days, so to say that business is thin is a refrain for some week past; it is not relevant to this week.

The hon. Lady asked when there would be a vote on opting in to certain measures in justice and home affairs. We have, of course, already decided to opt out of 100 measures, which is the largest return of power from Brussels to Britain ever seen in the history of this country. She said that I had announced the business up to 17 November, but she was not listening carefully enough, because I have announced the business up to 11 November. There is more time before we reach 20 November, as simple arithmetic makes it possible to deduce.

The hon. Lady asked about the coalition and when there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss money resolutions and private Members’ Bills. Those are discussed on private Members’ Bills days, and this issue was raised in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. It can hardly be said that the House does not have an opportunity to address these things, but, as she will have gathered, money resolutions have not been agreed in the Government on the European Union (Referendum) Bill or the Affordable Homes Bill. She asks whether that allows other private Members’ Bills to proceed, and the answer to that is yes. That is why I have announced in the business the money resolution relating to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, which will be moved on Monday. I am also placing on the Order Paper a motion that will allow that Bill to go into Committee. Other private Members’ Bills are, in the light of this situation, able to proceed.

The hon. Lady asked about votes that took place this week in the House of Lords, and of course the Bill she mentions will come to the Commons, we will be able to consider those amendments and the Government will have the opportunity to ask the House to reverse them if it wishes to do so. I note that yet again she did not ask—the Opposition never seem to—for any debates on, or time to discuss, the economy of this country. We look forward to a few such requests, because since the last business questions the GDP figures have shown our economy to be 3% bigger than it was a year ago and the statistics released yesterday showed the number of workless households in this country now to be at its lowest for at least 18 years—the figure is lower than at any point during the last Labour Government. Although we have our differences in the coalition from time to time, we have brought about that transformation of the economic prospects of this country. I will of course convey to the Chief Whip the hon. Lady’s congratulations on his dog doing so well in the Westminster dog of the year show.

As the hon. Lady asked about the Government record on policies towards women, I have to remind her that, under Labour, female unemployment rose 24%, and under this Government there are more women in work than ever before. When the Government whom she supported left office, 25% of the FTSE 100 boards had no female members. Now there are no FTSE 100 boards that have no female members. A higher proportion of public appointments have gone to women this year than in any year in the previous decade. Half of all honours this year have gone to women, which never happened under the previous Government. There are more women-led businesses than ever before, and there are, after the work that we have done in the Foreign Office over the past four years, more women ambassadors than ever before. Since I am on record all over the world as saying that the great strategic prize of this century is the full economic, social and political empowerment of women everywhere, it is clear that sometimes this is what a feminist looks like, with or without the T-shirt, and I have no hesitation in saying that.

Finally, as I always congratulate the hon. Lady on something—I have found something to congratulate her on every week so far—I congratulate her on being omitted by Maureen Lipman from the roll-call of reasons not to vote Labour any more. Maureen Lipman announced that, for the first time in five decades, she will not be voting Labour. She said:

“The Chuka Harman Burnham Hunt Balls brigade? I can’t, in all seriousness, go into a booth and put my mark on any one of them.”

I will draw Maureen Lipman’s attention to the hon. Lady, as she might be worth a vote.

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

On Monday, we had a report on HS2 by Sir David Higgins. As with many such reports, his raised more questions than it gave answers. The blight of this project affects many thousands of people along the proposed route, including many of my constituents. Uncertainty now about the location of the east midlands hub will only serve to spread this blight even wider. May we please have a statement from the Government about when we will know the location of the east midlands hub and the route for phase 2, so that people can get the compensation they need to get on with their lives?

[Mr Hague]

I will draw my hon. Friend’s concerns to the attention of Transport Ministers. Clearly, the location of the east midlands hub needs to work for both Derby and Nottingham, and provide the best possible wider connectivity to the region. However, that work is in its early stages, so it is premature to say that there will be a Government statement on it, and unfair to identify any particular sites until the Government are more certain about where that site might go because of the risk of blight to people’s properties. None the less, I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and I will draw them to the attention of the Ministers.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, I asked the Minister for Skills and Equalities, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), what the Government were doing to help young people with special needs get into employment. His answer was unsatisfactory. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the matter in Government time, so that we can explore the options available to Government to ensure that young people with special needs can get employment?

[Mr Hague]

Those are important issues, and the Government will have a great deal to say in such a debate about what has been achieved. Given the forthcoming business schedule, I cannot offer a debate in Government time, but the hon. Gentleman can of course pursue a debate in many different ways, including through the Backbench Business Committee, and I encourage him to do so.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

My constituent David Harrison was employed through a so-called umbrella company in the building trade. His payslip shows deductions for holiday pay, company margin and both employer’s and employee’s national insurance. Some umbrella firms are paying part of the wages as expenses to avoid tax. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the legality of such arrangements and what enforcement action his Department is taking?

[Mr Hague]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about that. I cannot offer a statement, but he may be aware that there are oral questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Monday, so there will be an early opportunity to ask about that and other issues.

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

Is it not time, in the interests of the House and of informing public opinion, that we had a debate in Government time on the implications of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership? The Leader of the House was in the Chamber for part of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions when a number of Government Members asked about food safety. There are also implications for environmental regulations, wages, terms and conditions, and concerns about the NHS. Would it not be opportune, while the negotiations are proceeding in secret, to have an open and public debate about them?

[Mr Hague]

It is certainly important for these matters to be discussed. The Government will not allow TTIP negotiations to harm the NHS. TTIP will not change the fact that it is up to British Governments alone to decide how British public services, including the NHS, are run, whoever is in government, and that must remain the case. But I understand that the hon. Gentleman has concerns and different arguments about it. Again, I cannot offer a debate in Government time. A great deal of the time of the House is now allocated and well used by the Backbench Business Committee, so I encourage him to use those opportunities, as well as to continue to question the Ministers responsible.

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

A hundred years ago, the Chatham-based military cruisers HMS Cressey, HMS Hogue and HMS Aboukir were sunk off the Dutch coast, resulting in the loss of 1,459 men, including many from the Medway area, which covers my constituency. As part of this year’s commemoration of the start of the first world war, it would be a fitting tribute for the Government to designate those wrecks under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. May we have an urgent statement from the Defence Secretary on the commemorations of the first world war as we approach Remembrance Sunday?

[Mr Hague]

This specific point is under consideration by Defence Ministers. My hon. Friend may know that a large number of wrecks have been designated under the Protection of Military Remains Act. Since 2002, there have been five statutory instruments relating to that. The Ministry of Defence is now considering which ships, from a list of more than 5,000, should be included in the next statutory instrument, but I can confirm that the three he has just referred to are part of that consideration, and I know that the Defence Secretary will note his strong support for their inclusion.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We should have that debate about the role of the Chief Whip, because he is not here again. I wonder whether he has something personal against the Leader of the House, whom I have found to be a very affable fellow in the 35 years that I have known him, despite our political differences. The Chief Whip’s job is just to sit quietly in the corner of the classroom. Does it not come to something when he cannot do that and is playing truant all the time?

[Mr Hague]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, despite all the nice things that he has just said about me, I robustly defend the Chief Whip. He is always busy and he is always present, wherever we think he may be.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Government are putting in place a series of initiatives to boost the northern economy, centred around major cities. However, areas such as my own in northern Lincolnshire do not benefit from a trickle-down from a neighbouring major city. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate when we can look at refining those policies so that areas such as mine benefit?

[Mr Hague]

This is a very important issue as we continue to decentralise as much as possible in England. It is important to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that city deals—the growth of freedom for local authorities to spend more of their own resources—are not just for well-known cities. They are also for other parts of the country. In fact, the black country has a city deal. There is a Preston, South Ribble and Lancashire city deal that goes far beyond any city. So it is possible for local authorities outside the main conurbations to benefit from this as well.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

As I have just returned from a visit to Iraq and Kurdistan with the Foreign Affairs Committee, and as we are working closely with the Kurds at the moment, may we also ask for equal treatment of men and women in Kurdistan? I was shocked to find that women are still put in prison for adultery in Kurdistan, but men are not. That cannot be right.

[Mr Hague]

The right hon. Lady is quite right to raise this issue. In line with my answer earlier to the shadow Leader of the House, these are the sorts of issues I have raised all over the world as Foreign Secretary until a few months ago. In that whole region, particularly given what ISIL is doing to so many women, including rape and enslavement, this is a very important issue. Of course, we must always make clear our views on these important issues to Governments across the middle east, and not hesitate to do so. I certainly endorse what she has said.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be only too aware of the enormous sacrifices that the people of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies have made for Queen and country for so long, including their contribution in the first world war, yet they are still denied the right to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in their own right. Will he please, in the final months of this Parliament, ask the Prime Minister to make a statement to change this position so that on Remembrance Sunday this year, on the anniversary of world war one, for the first time this Government will allow our territories and dependencies the right to lay their own wreathes and take their place alongside the representatives of the Commonwealth of nations?

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend knows, and as I know very well as a former Foreign Secretary, a wreath is laid on behalf of the overseas territories. I know that he is asking for them to lay it themselves, but the Foreign Secretary at the Cenotaph on Remembrance day lays, on behalf of all the overseas territories, a wreath that is decorated and composed of the vegetation and the flowers of all the overseas territories. It is a very special wreath laid on their behalf, and a very heavy one, I can tell him. I am not going to commit my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to giving up his own role in laying that wreath, but I will, of course, convey to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House will know that the Smith Commission has been meeting and making steady progress on more powers for Scotland. One of the things that Smith made abundantly clear was that more powers for Scotland should be considered without condition and without reference to any other external issue. Will the right hon. Gentleman respect that in any subsequent debate that we have in this House? Will we have it about Scotland, not about English votes for English laws, to ensure that the wishes of the Smith Commission are respected?

[Mr Hague]

The commitments made by all the pro-Union parties on Scotland are unconditional. We have all made that clear in the House before. Indeed, Lord Smith is getting on with that work and constructive discussions are taking place. The Government are contributing, when asked, information and analysis to help that work. There is a legitimate debate about fairness to all in the United Kingdom and that is why we have said that issues regarding all the other parts of the United Kingdom must be considered in tandem, but they are not conditional upon progress in Scotland, nor will they become conditional at any stage. But the hon. Gentleman cannot ask the rest of us to have no discussion about the affairs of the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

This is a question of principle and reflects remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the tabling of money resolutions. One has to study the annals of history to find occasions when a Government have refused to table a money resolution, thereby frustrating the clear will of the House. Although it may not be entirely unprecedented, it is extremely rare and exceptional for a Government to decline to respect the clearly expressed will of the House by refusing to table a money resolution, so will the Government be prepared to make a statement on the occasions when this situation occurs so that the House can then express its will again? This is an important issue.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is understandably promoting his Bill and would like to have seen a money resolution for it. He is right that it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government not to move a money resolution. There have been previous instances of that under Governments of different parties. He also understands that his Bill is a very unusual one, because it is unusual for the expenditure entailed by a private Member’s Bill—the precise figure may be disputed—to run into hundreds of millions of pounds. On such issues, the Government must, of course, ask whether they can responsibly provide a money resolution. This is an unusual situation. There is no particular provision in our rules for statements about that, but I think I have made the Government’s position clear.

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

During Health questions last week, the Secretary of State referred to the importance of peer review, yet the national peer review programme, which monitors the quality and safety of cancer services across England, is under serious threat of being cut. May we have an urgent debate on the future of that vital programme?

[Mr Hague]

As is often discussed in the House, the Government have a strong record on cancer. We have introduced the cancer drugs fund and put a great deal of emphasis on early diagnosis, and we will continue with that work. I will draw the point the hon. Lady makes to the attention of Health Ministers, but I encourage her also to pursue it with them at Question Time and through Adjournment or Back-Bench business debates.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Last Friday I had a very enjoyable lunch with two constituents at the William Withering, a Wetherspoon’s pub in Wellington in my constituency. The menu listed the calories and grams of fat for each food item, which is very helpful for someone who, like me, is trying to lose weight. Given the obesity challenge that the whole country faces, may we have a debate on how the Government can work more closely with the food and drink industry to see more of that good practice in other restaurants and leisure facilities up and down the land?

[Mr Hague]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is touring the pubs of his constituency while simultaneously fighting obesity—always a challenge, but he appears to be succeeding in both objectives. It is something I have often done, and I strongly recommend it to all Members, particularly as elections draw close. We have just had questions on food matters to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it is wholly legitimate for my hon. Friend to seek to raise the matter in other ways on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I was hoping that we were going to hear about the Leader of the House’s judo and other exercise regimes, but there might be more of that anon—who knows?

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on wildlife crime? The Leader of the House will know that two days ago Natural England published a report showing that of the 47 hen harriers that it has tagged with transmitters over the past seven years, only four are thought still to be alive. That shows that there are serious problems and I think that the House should debate them.

[Mr Hague]

That is a very important concern. Indeed, as chair of the Government’s committee on animal health issues, including wildlife, I feel very strongly about it. We fund the wildlife crime unit, which of course is intended to tackle these problems, so Ministers are very conscious of the issue, and they will have been further reminded by the hon. Gentleman raising it.

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

On 22 January, the European Scrutiny Committee referred EU Document No. 16930/13, entitled “Free movement of EU citizens”, for debate on the Floor of the House. After nine months, can the Leader of the House indicate how close we are to having that debate?

[Mr Hague]

Well, we are closer than we were nine months ago, but not so close that I can announce it in the business for the week ahead. I know that it was an important report by the Committee, and that this is an issue on which hon. Members have strong feelings and opinions, so I will undertake to examine the point my hon. Friend has made.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On the economy, which I raised during Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, and which I am happy to discuss with the Leader of the House anytime, may we have an urgent debate on living standards? In particular, why is it that, despite decreasing levels of unemployment, the deficit has increased by 10% over the past year?

[Mr Hague]

I wish the hon. Gentleman well in raising the economy from the Opposition Benches because he is a bit of a lone voice. I welcome his doing so at Prime Minister’s questions and business questions, and indeed the fact that he asks about the deficit, which his leader regularly forgets. The deficit is down by more than a third from what the coalition Government inherited in 2010. His party has so far opposed some £83 billion of savings in welfare budgets, so we can only imagine what the deficit would be if it was still in office.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May we have a debate on the guidance issued in February 2012 by the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government? It stated that local authorities should take steps to stop the use of contracts that allow consultants to avoid paying income tax and national insurance contributions at the rate paid by those on PAYE.

Last week, Somerset county council changed its pay policy, but, in spite of several amendments that would have regulated matters, the leader refused an invitation to align the policy with Government guidance, saying that Parliament should legislate if it really wants Somerset county council to follow what it says is “only guidance”. May we have a debate to sort the matter out once and for all?

[Mr Hague]

It is guidance, and it has been adopted across Government Departments and many parts of local government. It is good practice to adopt it. We are not at a stage of the Parliament in which it is easy to call for new legislation on any matter; my hon. Friend is free to call for that in the coming months, but we do not have the opportunity to introduce it. I am sure that she can pursue the point with my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government, who will be interested to hear of her concerns.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

When can we debate early-day motions 409 to 435, which record and honour, and express our sorrow at the deaths of, the 453 of our brave soldiers killed in Afghanistan?

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Captain Thomas Clarke, aged 30, from Cardiff, Flight Lieutenant Rakesh Chauhan, aged 29, from Birmingham, Warrant Officer Class 2 Spencer Faulkner, aged 38, Corporal James Walters, aged 36, from Cornwall, Lance Corporal Oliver Thomas, aged 26, from Brecon, Sapper Adam Moralee, aged 23, from Newcastle, Captain Richard Holloway, aged 29, from Durham, Warrant Officer Class 2 Ian Fisher, aged 42, from Essex, Lance Corporal James Brynin, The Intelligence Corps, aged 22, from Shoreham-by-Sea, Flight Lieutenant Steven Johnson, aged 38, from Collingham, Nottinghamshire, Flight Lieutenant Leigh Anthony Mitchelmore, aged 28, from Bournemouth, Flight Lieutenant Gareth Rodney Nicholas, aged 40, from Newquay, Cornwall, Flight Lieutenant Allan James Squires, aged 39, from Clatterbridge, Flight Lieutenant Steven Swarbrick, aged 28, from Liverpool, Flight Sergeant Gary Wayne Andrews, aged 48, from Tankerton, Kent, Flight Sergeant Stephen Beattie, aged 42, from Dundee, Flight Sergeant Gerard Martin Bell, aged 48, from Ely, Cambridgeshire, Flight Sergeant Adrian Davies, aged 49, from Amersham, Buckinghamshire, Sergeant Benjamin James Knight, aged 25, from Bridgwater, Sergeant John Joseph Langton, aged 29, from Liverpool, Sergeant Gary Paul Quilliam, aged 42, from Manchester, Corporal Oliver Simon Dicketts, The Parachute Regiment, aged 27, Marine Joseph David Windall, Royal Marines, aged 22, Corporal William Thomas Savage, aged 30, from Irvine, Fusilier Samuel Flint, aged 21, from Blackpool and Private Robert Murray Hetherington, from the United States of America.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Lance Corporal Jamie Webb, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 24, from Wythenshawe, Kingsman David Robert Shaw, 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 23, from Barrow-in-Furness, Sapper Richard Reginald Walker, 28 Engineer Regiment, aged 23, from Leeds and Captain Walter Barrie, 1 Scots, aged 41, from Glasgow, Lieutenant Edward Drummond-Baxter, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 29, from County Durham, Lance Corporal Siddhanta Kunwar, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 28, from Pokhara, Nepal, Corporal David O'Connor, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 27, from Havant, Hampshire, Corporal Channing Day, 3 Medical Regiment, aged 25, from Newtownards, County Down, Captain Carl Manley, Royal Marines, aged 41, Captain James Anthony Townley, Corps of Royal Engineers, aged 29, from Tunbridge Wells, Sergeant Jonathan Eric Kups, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, aged 38, from Nuneaton, Warwickshire, Sergeant Gareth Thursby, 3 Yorks, aged 29, from Skipton, Private Thomas Wroe, 3 Yorks, aged 18, from Huddersfield, Lance Corporal Duane Groom, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 32, from Suva City, Fiji, Sergeant Lee Paul Davidson, The Light Dragoons, aged 32, from Doncaster, and Guardsman Karl Whittle, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 22, from Bristol.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Corporal Jack Leslie Stanley, The Queen's Royal Hussars, aged 26, from Bolton, Sergeant Luke Taylor, The Royal Marines, aged 33, from Bournemouth, Lance Corporal Michael Foley, Adjutant General's Corps (Staff and Personnel Support), aged 25, from Burnley, Lancashire, Captain Rupert William Michael Bowers, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 24, from Wolverhampton, Sergeant Nigel Coupe, 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 33, from Lytham St. Annes, Lancashire, Corporal Jake Hartley, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 20, from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, Private Anthony Frampton, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 20, from Huddersfield, Private Christopher Kershaw, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 19, from Bradford, Private Daniel Wade, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 20, from Warrington, Private Daniel Wilford, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 21, from Huddersfield, Senior Aircraftman Ryan Tomlin, 2 Squadron RAF Regiment, aged 21, from Hemel Hempstead, Lance Corporal Gajbahadur Gurung, Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 26, from Majthana, Nepal, Signaller Ian Gerard Sartorius-Jones, 20th Armoured Brigade Headquarters and Signal Squadran (200), aged 21, from Runcorn, Cheshire, Rifleman Sachin Limbu, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 23, from Rajghat, Morang, Nepal, Private John King, 1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 19, from Darlington, Squadron Leader Anthony Downing, Royal Air Force, aged 34, from Kent and Captain Tom Jennings, Royal Marines, aged 29.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Guardsman Jamie Shadrake, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 20, from Wrexham, Wales, Lance Corporal Matthew David Smith, Corps of Royal Engineers, aged 26, from Aldershot, Lieutenant Andrew Robert Chesterman, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 26, from Guildford, Warrant Officer Class 2 Leonard Perran Thomas, Royal Corps of Signals, aged 44, from Ross-on-Wye, Guardsman Craig Andrew Roderick, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, aged 22, from Cardiff, Guardsman Apete Saunikalou Ratumaiyale Tuisovurua, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, aged 28, from Fiji, Corporal Alex Guy, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 37, from St Neots, Cambridgeshire, Lance Corporal James Ashworth, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 23, from Kettering, Private Gregg Thomas Stone, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 20, from Yorkshire, Corporal Michael John Thacker, 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh, aged 27, from Swindon, Wiltshire, Captain Stephen James Healey, 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh, aged 29, from Cardiff, Corporal Brent John McCarthy, Royal Air Force, aged 25, from Priorslee, Telford, Lance Corporal Lee Thomas Davies, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, aged 27, from Carmarthen, Corporal Andrew Steven Roberts, 23 Pioneer Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps, aged 32, from Middlesbrough, Private Ratu Manasa Silibaravi, 23 Pioneer Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps, aged 32, from Fiji, Guardsman Michael Roland, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 22, from Worthing and Sapper Connor Ray, 33 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), aged 21, from Newport.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Sapper Elijah Bond, 35 Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers, aged 24, from St Austell, Rifleman Sheldon Lee Jordan Steel, 5th Battalion The Rifles, aged 20, from Leeds, Private Thomas Christopher Lake, 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, aged 29, from Watford, Lieutenant David Boyce, 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards, aged 25, from Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, Lance Corporal Richard Scanlon, 1st The Queen's Dragoons Guards, aged 31, from Rhymney, Gwent, Lance Corporal Peter Eustace, 2nd Battalion The Riffle, aged 25, from Liverpool, Private Matthew Thornton, 4th Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 28, from Barnsley, Private Matthew James Sean Haseldin, 2nd Battalion The Mercia Regiment, aged 21, from Settle, Yorkshire, Rifleman Vijay Rai, 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 21, from the Bhojpur District, Deaurali East of Nepal, Marine David Fairbrother, Kilo Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 24, from Blackburn, Lance Corporal Jonathan James McKinley, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 33, from Darlington, County Durham, Sergeant Barry John Weston, Kilo Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 40, from Reading, Lieutenant Daniel John Clack, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 24, from North London, Marine James Robert Wright, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 22, from Weymouth and Corporal Mark Anthony Palin, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 32, from Plymouth.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Lance Corporal Paul Watkins, 9th/12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales's), aged 24, from Port Elizabeth, Republic of South Africa, Highlander Scott McLaren, The Highlanders 4th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 20, from Edinburgh, Private Gareth Leslie William Bellingham, 3rd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Stafford), aged 22, from Stoke-on-Trent, Corporal Lloyd Newell, The Parachute Regiment, Craftsman Andrew Found, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, aged 27, from Whitby, Rifleman Martin Jon Lamb, 1st Battalion the Rifles, aged 27, from Gloucester, Lance Corporal Martin Joseph Gill, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 22, from Nottingham, Corporal Michael John Pike, The Highlanders 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 26, from Huntly, Scotland, Lieutenant Oliver Richard Augustin, Juliet Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Kent, Marine Samuel Giles William Alexander MC, Juliet Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 28, from London, Colour Sergeant Kevin Charles Fortuna, A Company, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 36, from Cheltenham, Marine Nigel Dean Mead, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 19, from Carmarthen, Captain Lisa Jade Head, 11 EOD Regiment RLC, aged 29, from Huddersfield, Colour Sergeant Alan Cameron, 1st Battalion Scots Guards, aged 42, from Livingston, Scotland, Major Matthew James Collins, 1st Battalion Irish Guards, aged 38, from Backwell, Somerset and Lance Sergeant Mark Terence Burgan, 1st Battalion Irish Guards, aged 28, from Liverpool.]

[That this House That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Private Daniel Steven Prior, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 27, from Peacehaven, East Sussex, Lance Corporal McKee, 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, aged 27, from Banbridge, County Down, Northern Ireland, Lance Corporal Liam Richard Tasker, Royal Army Veterinary Corps, aged 26, from Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland, Private Robert Wood, 17 Port and Maritime Regiment Royal Logistic Corps, aged 28, from Hampshire, Private Dean Hutchinson, 9 Regiment The Royal Logistic Corps, aged 23, from Wiltshire, Lance Corporal Kyle Cleet Marshall, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 23, from Newcastle, Private Lewis Hendry, 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 20, from Norwich, Private Conrad Lewis, 4th Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 22, from Bournemouth, Warrant Officer Class 2 (Company Sergeant Major) Colin Beckett, 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 36, from Peterborough, Ranger David Dalzell, 1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, aged 20, from Bangor County Down, Private Martin Simon George Bell, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 24, from Bradford, Private Joseva Saqanagonedau Vatubua, 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 24, from Suva, Fiji, Warrant Officer Class 2 Charles Henry Wood, 23 Pioneer Regiment Royal Logistic Corps, serving with the Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Taks Force, aged 34, from Middlesbrough, and Corporal Steven Thomas Dunn, 216 (Parachute) Signal Squadron, attached to 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment Battlegroup, aged 27, from Gateshead.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Private John Howard, 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 23, from Wellington, New Zealand, Guardsman Christopher Davies, 1st Battalion Irish Guards, aged 22, from St Helens, Merseyside, Ranger Aaron McCormick, 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, aged 22, from Coleraine in County Londonderry, Senior Aircraftsman Scott ‘Scotty' Hughes, 1 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment, aged 20, from North Wales, Sapper William Bernard Blanchard, 101 (City of London) Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), aged 39, from Gosport, Hampshire, Corporal David Barnsdale, 33 Engineer Regiment, aged 24, from Tring, Sergeant Peter Anthony Rayner, 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 34, from Bradford, Rifleman Suraj Gurung, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 22, from Gorkha in Nepal, Corporal Matthew Thomas, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Sergeant Andrew James Jones, Royal Engineers, aged 35, from Newport, South Wales, Trooper Andrew Martin Howarth, The Queen's Royal Lancers, aged 20, from Bournemouth, Kingsman Darren Deady, 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 22, from Bolton, Captain Andrew Griffiths, 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 25, from Richmond, North Yorkshire, Lance Corporal Joseph McFarlane Pool, The Royal Scots Borderers 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 26, from Greenock, and Lance Corporal Jordan Dean Bancroft, 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 25, from Burnley.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Sapper Ishwor Gurung, 69 Gurkha Field Squadron, 21 Engineer Regiment, aged 21, from Pokhara, Nepal, Sapper Darren Foster, 21 Engineer Regiment, aged 20, from Carlisle, Rifleman Remand Kulung, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Cheshire), aged 27, from Nepal, Lietuenant John Charles Sanderson, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Cheshire), aged 29, from Oklahoma, USA, Marine Adam Brown, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 26, from Burtle, near Glastonbury, Lance Sergeant Dale Alanzo McCallum, 1st Battalion Scots Guards, aged 31, from Hanover, Jamaica, Sapper Mark Antony Smith, 36 Engineer Regiment, aged 26, from Swanley, Kent, Corporal Matthew James Stenton, The Royal Dragoon Guards, aged 23, from Wakefield, Lance Corporal Stephen Daniel Monkhouse, 1st Battalion Scots Guards, aged 28, from Greenock, Staff Sergeant Brett George Linley, The Royal Logistic Corps, aged 29, from Birmingham, Sergeant David Thomas Monkhouse, The Royal Dragoon Guards, aged 35, from Aspatria, Cumbria, Senior Aircraftman Kinikki ‘Griff' Griffiths, aged 20, Marine Jonathan David Thomas Crookes, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 26, from Birmingham, Marine Matthew Harrison, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Hemel Hempstead, Major James Joshua Bowman, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 34, from Salisbury, Lieutenant Neal Turkington, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 26, from Craigavon, and Corporal Arjun Purja Pun, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 33, from Khibang village Magdi District, Nepal.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Marine David Charles Hart, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Upper Poppleton, North Yorkshire, Bombardier Samuel Joseph Robinson, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 31, from Carmarthen, Private Thomas Sephton, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 20, from Warrington, Trooper James Anthony Leverett, Royal Dragoon Guards, aged 20, from Sheffield, Corporal Seth Stephens, Royal Marines, Corporal Jamie Kirkpatrick, 101 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), aged 32, from Llanelli, Bombardier Stephen Raymond Gilbert, 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 36, from Topcliffe, North Yorkshire, Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 34, from Runcorn, Lance Corporal David Ramsden, 1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 26, from Leeds, Private Douglas Halliday, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 20, from Wallasey, Merseyside, Private Alex Isaac, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 20, from the Wirral, Sergeant Steven William Darbyshire, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 35, from Wigan, Lance Corporal Michael Taylor, Charlie Company, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 30, from Rhyl, Marine Paul Warren, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Leyland, Lancashire, Marine Richard Hollington, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Petersfield, Trooper Ashley Smith, Royal Dragoon Guards, aged 21, from York, Corporal Taniela Tolevu Rogoiruwai, aged 32, from Nausori, Fiji, Kingsman Pomipate Tagitaginimoce, aged 29, from Nausori, Fiji, and Marine Steven James Birdsall, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 20, from Warrington.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Lance Corporal Andrew Breeze, B (Malta) Company, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Cheshire), aged 31, from Manchester, Private Jonathan Monk, 2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, aged 25, from London, Lance Bombardier Mark Chandler, 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, aged 32, from Nailsworth, Gloucestershire, Corporal Terry Webster, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Cheshire), aged 24, from Chester, Lance Corporal Alan Cochran, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Cheshire), aged 23, from St Asaph, North Wales, Marine Anthony Dean Hotine, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 21, from Warminster, Marine Scott Gregory Taylor, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 20, from Buxton, Corporal Stephen Curley, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 26, from Exeter, Gunner Zak Cusack, 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 20, from Stoke-on-Trent, Corporal Stephen Walker, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 42, from Lisburn, Northern Ireland, Corporal Christopher Lewis Harrison, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 26, from Watford, Sapper Daryn Roy, 21 Engineer Regiment, aged 28, from Consett, County Durham, Lance Corporal Barry Buxton, 21 Engineer Regiment, aged 27, from Meir, Stoke-on-Trent, Corporal Harvey Holmes, 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 22, from Hyde, Greater Manchester, Fusilier Jonathan Burgess, 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh, aged 20, from Townhill, Swansea, Rifleman Mark Turner, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 21, from Gateshead and Guardsman Michael Sweeney, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, aged 19, from Blyth in Northumberland.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Rifleman Daniel Holkham, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 19, from Chatham, Kent, Lance Corporal of Horse Jonathan Woodgate, Household Cavalry Regiment, aged 26, from Lavenham, Suffolk, Sergeant Steven Campbell, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 30, from Durham, Lance Corporal Scott Hardy, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 26, from Chelmsford, Private James Grigg, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 20, from Hartismere, Suffolk, Captain Martin Driver, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 31, from Barnsley, Corporal Stephen Thompson, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 31, from Bovey Tracey, Devon, Lance Corporal Tom Keogh, 4th Battalion The Rifles, aged 24, from Paddington, London, Rifleman Liam Maughan, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 18, from Doncaster, Rifleman Jonathan Allott, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 19, from North Shields, Corporal Richard Green, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 23, from Reading, Rifleman Carlo Apolis, 4th Battalion The Rifles, aged 28, from South Africa, Sergeant Paul Fox, 28 Engineer Regiment, aged 34, from St Ives, Rifleman Martin Kinggett, 4th Battalion The Rifles, aged 19, from Dagenham, Senior Aircraftman, Luke Southgate, II Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment, aged 20, from Bury St Edmunds, Lance Sergeant David ‘Davey' Walker, 1st Battalion Scots Guards, aged 36, from Glasgow, Lieutenant Douglas Dalzell, 1st Battalion Goldstream Guards from Berkshire and Sapper Guy Mellors, 36 Engineer Regiment, aged 20, from Coventry.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Kingsman Sean Dawson, 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 19, from Ashton-under-Lyne, Manchester, Rifleman Mark Marshall, 6th Battalion The Rifles, aged 29, from Exeter, Lance Sergeant Dave Greenhalgh, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 25, from Ilkeston, Derbyshire, Lance Corporal Darren Hicks, from Mousehole, Cornwall, Warrant Officer Class 2 David Markland, 36 Engineer Regiment, aged 36, from Euxton, Lancashire, Corporal John Moore, The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 22, from Lanarkshire, Private Sean McDonald, The Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 26, from Edinburgh, Corporal Liam Riley, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 21, from Sheffield, Lance Corporal Graham Shaw, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 27, from Huddersfield, Lance Corporal Daniel Cooper, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 22, from Hereford, Rifleman Peter Aldridge, 4th Battalion The Rifles, aged 19, Corporal Lee Brownson, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 30, from Bishop Auckland, Rifleman Luke Farmer, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 19, from Pontefract, Captain Daniel Reed, 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, Royal Logistics Corps, aged 32, from Rainham, Kent, Private Robert Hayes, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 19, from Cambridge, Sapper David Watson, 33 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), aged 23, and Rifleman Aidan Howell, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 19, from Sidcup, Kent.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Lance Corporal Tommy Brown, The Parachute Regiment, Lance Corporal Christopher Roney, A Company, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 23, from Sunderland, Lance Corporal Michael David Pritchard, 4th Regiment, Royal Military Police, aged 22, from Maidstone, Corporal Simon Hornby, 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 29, from Liverpool, Lance Corporal David Leslie Kirkness, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 24, from West Yorkshire, Rifleman James Stephen Brown, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 18, from Kent, Lance Corporal Adame Drane, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 23, from Bury St Edmunds, Acting Sergeant John Paxton Amer, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, from Sunderland, Sergeant Robert David Loughran-Dickson, 4th Regiment Royal Military Police, aged 33, from Deal, Kent, Corporal Loren Owen Christopher Marlton-Thomas, 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD), aged 28, Rifleman Andrew Ian Fentiman, 7th Battalion The Rifles, aged 23, from Cambridge, Rifleman Samuel John Bassett, 4th Battalion The Rifles, aged 20, from Plymouth, Rifleman Philip Allen, 2 Rifles, aged 20, from Dorset, Sergeant Phillip Scott, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, aged 30, from Malton, Warrant Officer Class 1 Darren Chant, 1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards, aged 40, from Walthamstow, Sergeant Matthew Telford, 1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards, aged 37, from Grimsby, Guardsman James Major, 1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards, aged 18, from Grimsby, and Corporal Steven Boote, Royal Military Police, aged 22, from Birkenhead, Liverpool.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Corporal Nicholas Webster-Smith, Royal Military Police, aged 24, from Glangwili, Staff Sergeant Olaf Sean George Schmid, Royal Logistic Corps, aged 30, from Truro, Corporal Thomas ‘Tam' Mason, the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 27, from Rosyth, Corporal James Oakland, Royal Military Police, aged 26, from Manchester, Lance Corporal James Hill, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, aged 23, from Redhill, Surrey, Guardsman James Janes, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 20, from Brighton, Acting Corporal Marcin Wojtak, 34 Squadron RAF regiment, aged 24, from Leicester, Private James Prosser, 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh, aged 21, from Cwmbran, Acting Sergeant Michael Lockett MC, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, from Monifieth in Angus, Acting Sergeant Stuart McGrath, 2nd Battalion, The Rifles, aged 28, from Buckinghamshire, Trooper Brett Hall, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, aged 21, from Dartmouth, Kingsman Jason Dunn-Bridgeman, 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, aged 20, from Liverpool, Corporal John Harrison, The Parachute Regiment, Private Gavin Elliott, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 19, from Woodsetts, Worksop, Nottinghamshire, Lance Corporal Richard Brandon, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, aged 24, from Kidderminster, Sergeant Stuart ‘Gus' Millar, The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 40, from Inverness, Private Kevin Elliott, The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 24, from Dundee, and Sergeant Lee Andrew Houltram, Royal Marines.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Fusilier Shaun Bush, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, aged 24, from Warwickshire, Sergeant Paul McAleese, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 29, from Hereford, Private Jonathon Young, 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Duke of Wellington's), aged 18, from Hull, Lance Corporal James Fullarton, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, aged 24, from Coventry, Fusilier Simon Annis, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, from Salford, Fusilier Louis Carter, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, from Nuneaton, Sergeant Simon Valentine, aged 29, from Bedworth, Private Richard Hunt, 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh, aged 21, from Abergavenny, Captain Mark Hale, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 42, from Bournemouth, Lance Bombardier Matthew Hatton, 40th Regiment Royal Artillery (The Lowland Gunners), aged 23, from Easingwold, North Yorkshire, Rifleman Daniel Wild, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 19, from Hartlepool, Private Jason George Williams, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 23, from Worcester, Corporal Kevin Mulligan, The Parachute Regiment, aged 26, Lance Corporal Dale Thomas Hopkins, The Parachute Regiment, aged 23, Private Kyle Adams, The Parachute Regiment, aged 21, Craftsman Anthony Lombardi, aged 21, from Scunthorpe, Trooper Phillip Lawrence, Light Dragoons, aged 22, from Birkenhead, Warrant Officer Class 2 Sean Upton, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 35, from Nottinghamshire and Bombardier Craig Hopson, 40th Regiment Royal Artillery (The Lowland Gunners), aged 24, from Castleford.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Guardsman Christopher King, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, aged 20, from Birkenhead, Liverpool, Captain Daniel Shepherd, 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps, aged 28, from Lincoln, Corporal Joseph Etchells, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, aged 22, from Mossley, Rifleman Aminiasi Toge, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 26, from Suva, Fiji, Corporal Jonathan Horne, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 28, from Walsall, Rifleman William Aldridge, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 18, from Bromyard, Herefordshire, Rifleman James Backhouse, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 18, from Castleford, Yorkshire, Rifleman Joe Murphy, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 18, from Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, Rifleman Daniel Simpson, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 20, from Croydon, Corporal Lee Scott, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, aged 26, from King's Lynn, Private John Brackpool, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, aged 27, from Crawley, West Sussex, Rifleman Daniel Hume, 4th Battalion The Rifles, Trooper Christopher Whiteside, The Light Dragoons, aged 20, from Blackpool, Captain Ben Babington-Browne, 22 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, aged 27, from Maidstone, Lance Corporal Dane Elson, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, aged 22, from Bridgend, Lance Corporal David Dennis, The Light Dragoons, aged 29, from Llanelli, Wales, Private Robert Laws, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 18, from Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe MBE, Commanding Officer, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards and Trooper Joshua Hammond, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, aged 18.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Major Sean Birchall, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, aged 33, Lieutenant Paul Mervis, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 27 from London, Private Robert McLaren, The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 20 from the Isle of Mull, Rifleman Cyrus Thatcher, 2nd Battalion The Rifles, aged 19 from Reading, Lance Corporal Nigel Moffett, The Light Dragoons, aged 28 from Belfast, Corporal Stephen Bolger, The Parachute Regiment, Lance Corporal Kieron Hill, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Worcesters and Foresters), aged 20, from Nottingham, Lance Corporal Robert Martin Richards, Armoured Support Group Royal Marines, aged 24, from Betws-y-Coed, North Wales, Sapper Jordan Rossi, 25 Field Squadron, 38 Engineer Regiment, aged 22 from West Yorkshire, Fusilier Petero ‘Pat' Suesue, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, aged 28 from Fiji, Marine Jason Mackie, Armoured Support Group Royal Marines, aged 21 from Bampton, Oxfordshire, Lieutenant Mark Evison, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, Aged 26, Sergeant Ben Ross, 173 Provost Company, 3rd Regiment Royal Military Police, Corporal Kumar Pun, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, Rifleman Adrian Sheldon, 2 Rifles, from Kirkby-in-Ashfield, Corporal Sean Binnie, 3 Scots, aged 22, Lance Sergeant Tobie Fasfous, 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, aged 29, Corporal Dean Thomas John, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, aged 25 from Neath, and Corporal Graeme Stiff, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, aged 24 from Munster, Germany.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Lance Corporal Christopher Harkett, 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh, aged 22, from Swansea, Marine Michael ‘Mick' Laski, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 21, from Liverpool, Corporal Tom Gaden, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 24, from Taunton, Lance Corporal Paul Upton, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 31, Rifleman Jamie Gunn, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 21, from Leamington Spa, Lance Corporal Stephen ‘Schnoz' Kingscott, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 22, from Plymouth, Marine Darren ‘Daz' Smith, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 27, from Fleetwood, Lancashire, Corporal Daniel ‘Danny' Nield, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 31, from Cheltenham, Acting Corporal Richard ‘Robbo' Robinson, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 21, from Cornwall, Captain Tom Sawyer, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 26, from Hertfordshire, Corporal Danny Winter, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 28, from Stockport, Marine Travis Mackin, Communications Squadron United Kingdom Landing Force Command Support Group, aged 22, from Plymouth, Sergeant Chris Reed, 6th Battalion The Rifles, aged 25, from Plymouth, Corporal Liam Elms, RM, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 26, from Wigan, Lance Corporal Benjamin Whatley, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 20, from King's Lynn, Corporal Robert Deering, Commando Logistic Regiment Royal Marines, aged 33, from Solihull, Rifleman Stuart Nash, 1st Battalion The Rifles, aged 21, from Sydney, Australia, and Lieutenant Aaron Lewis, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 26, from Essex.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Lance Corporal Steven ‘Jamie' Fellows, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 28, from Sheffield, Marine Damian Davies, aged 27, Sergeant John Manuel, aged 38, from North East England, Corporal Mark Birch, aged 26, from Northampton, Marine Tony Evans, aged 20, from Sunderland, Marine Georgie Sparks, aged 19, from Epping, Marine Alexander Lucas, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 24, from Edinburgh, Colour Sergeant Krishnabahadur Dura, 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 36, from the Lamjung District of Western Nepal, Marine Neil David Dunstan, aged 32, from Bournemouth, Marine Robert Jospeh McKibben, aged 32, from County Mayo, Rifleman Yubraj Rai, 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 28, from Khotang District, Eastern Nepal, Trooper James Munday, aged 21, from the Birmingham area, Lance Corporal Nicky Matson, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 26, from Aveley in Essex, Private Jason Lee Rawstron, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 23, from Lancashire, Warrant officer Class 2 Gary ‘Gaz' O' Donnell GM, 1 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment Royal Logistic Corps, aged 40, from Edinburgh, Ranger Justin James Cupples, 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, aged 29, from County Cavan, Ireland, Corporal Barry Dempsey, The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 29, from Ayrshire, Signaller Wayne Bland, 16 Signal Regiment, aged 21, from Leeds and Private Peter Joe Cowton, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 25, from Basingstoke.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Sergeant Jonathan Mathews, The Highlanders, 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 35, from Edinburgh, Lance Corporal Kenneth Michael Rowe, Royal Army Veterinary Corps, aged 24, from Newcastle, Corporal Jason Stuart Barnes, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, aged 25, from Exeter, Lance Corporal James Johnson, B Company, 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 31, from Scotland, Warrant Officer 2nd Class Dan Shirley, Air Assault Support Regiment, Royal Logistics Corps, aged 32, from Leicester, Warrant Officer 2nd Class Michael Norman Williams, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 40, from Cardiff, Private Joe John Whittaker, 4th Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 20 from Stratford-upon-Avon, Corporal Sarah Bryant, Intelligence Corps, aged 26, from Liverpool, Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, Royal Signals, aged 28, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin, aged 39, Paul Stout, aged 31, Lance Corporal James Bateman, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 29, from Staines, Middlesex, Private Jeff Doherty, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 20, from Southam, Warwickshire, Private Nathan Cuthbertson, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 19, from Sunderland, Private Daniel Gamble, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 22, from Uckfield, East Sussex, Private Charles David Murray, 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 19, from Carlisle, and Marine Dale Gostick, 3 Troop Armoured Support Company, Royal Marines, aged 22, from Oxford.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Drummer Thomas Wright, 1st Battalion The Worcestershire and Sherwood Forresters, aged 21, from Ripley, Derbyshire, Guardsman Neil ‘Tony' Downes, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 20, from Manchester, Lance Corporal Paul 'Sandy' Sandford, 1st Battalion The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters, aged 23, from Nottingham, Corporal Mike Gilyeat, Royal Military Police, aged 28, Corporal Darren Bonner, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 31, from Norfolk, Guardsman Daniel Probyn, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 22, from Tipton, Lance Corporal George Russell Davey, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 23, from Suffolk, Guardsman Simon Davison, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 22, from Newcastle upon Tyne, Private Chris Gray, A Company 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 19, from Leicestershire, Warrant Officer Class 2 Michael ‘Mick' Smith, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 39, from Liverpool, Marine Benjamin Reddy, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 22, from Ascot, Berkshire, Lance Bombardier Ross Clark, aged 25, from South Africa, Lance Bombardier Liam McLaughlin, aged 21, from Lancashire, Marine Scott Summers, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Crawley, East Sussex, Marine Jonathan Holland, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Chorley, Lancashire, Lance Corporal Mathew Ford, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 30, from Immingham, Lincolnshire, Marine Thomas Curry 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 21, from East London and Lance Bombardier James Dwyer, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 22.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of James Thompson, Trooper Ratu Sakeasi Babakobau, Household Cavalry Regiment, aged 29, from Fiji, Trooper Robert Pearson, The Queen's Royal Lancers Regiment, aged 22, from Grimsby, Senior Aircraftman Graham Livingstone, Royal Air Force Regiment, aged 23, from Glasgow, Senior Aircraftman Gary Thompson, Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment, aged 51, from Nottingham, Lieutenant John Thornton, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 22, from Ferndown, Marine David Marsh, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Sheffield, Corporal Damian Mulvihill, 40 Commando Royal Marines, aged 32, from Plymouth, Corporal Damian Stephen Lawrence, 2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Green Howards), aged 25, from Whitby, Corporal Darryl Gardiner, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, aged 25, from Salisbury, Wiltshire, Sergeant Lee Johnson, 2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment, aged 33, from Stockton-on-Tees, Trooper Jack Sadler, The Honourable Artillery Company, aged 21, from Exeter, Captain John McDermid, The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 43, from Glasgow, Lance Corporal Jake Alderton, 36 Engineer Regiment, aged 22, from Bexley, Major Alexis Roberts, 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, aged 32, from Kent, Colour Sergeant Phillip Newman, 4th Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 36, Private Brian Tunnicliffe, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Worcesters and Foresters), aged 33, from Ilkeston, Corporal Ivano Violino, 36 Engineer Regiment, aged 29, from Salford and Sergeant Craig Brelsford, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 25, from Nottingham.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Private Johan Botha, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, from South Africa, Private Damian Wright, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 23, from Mansfield, Private Ben Ford, 2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, aged 18, from Chesterfield, Senior Aircraftman Christopher Bridge, C flight, 51 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment, aged 20, from Sheffield, Private Aaron James McClure, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 19, from Ipswich, Private Robert Graham Foster, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 19, from Harlow, Private John Thrumble, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 21, from Chelmsford, Captain David Hicks, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 26, from Surrey, Private Tony Rawson, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 27, from Dagenham, Essex, Lance Corporal Michael Jones, Royal Marines, aged 26, from Newbald, Yorkshire, Sergeant Barry Keen, 14 Signal Regiment, aged 34, from Gateshead, Guardsman David Atherton, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 25, from Manchester, Lance Corporal Alex Hawkins, 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment, aged 22, from East Dereham, Norfolk, Guardsman Daryl Hickey, 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, aged 27, from Birmingham, Sergeant Dave Wilkinson, 19 Regiment Royal Artillery, aged 33, from Ashford, Kent and Captain Sean Dolan, 1st Battalion The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters, aged 40, from the West Midlands.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Marine Richard J Watson, 42 Commando Royal Marines, aged 23, from Caterham, Surrey, Marine Jonathan Wigley, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 21, from Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, Marine Gary Wright, 45 Commando Royal Marines, aged 22, from Glasgow, Lance Corporal Paul Muirhead, 1 Royal Irish Regiment, aged 29, from Bearley, Warwickshire, Lance Corporal Luke McCulloch, 1 Royal Irish Regiment, aged 21, Corporal Mark William Wright, 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 27, from Edinburgh, Private Craig O'Donnell, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, aged 24, from Clydebank, Flight Lieutenant Steven Johnson, aged 38, from Collingham, Nottinghamshire, Flight Lieutenant Leigh Anthony Mitchelmore, aged 28, from Bournemouth, Flight Lieutenant Gareth Rodney Nicholas, aged 40, from Newquay, Cornwall, Flight Lieutenant Allan James Squires, aged 39, from Clatterbridge, Flight Lieutenant Steven Swarbrick, aged 28, from Liverpool, Flight Sergeant Gary Wayne Andrews, aged 48, from Tankerton, Kent, Flight Sergeant Stephen Beattie, aged 42, from Dundee, Flight Sergeant Gerard Martin Bell, aged 48, from Ely, Cambridgeshire, Flight Sergeant Adrian Davies, aged 49, from Amersham, Buckinghamshire, Sergeant Benjamin James Knight, aged 25, from Bridgwater, Sergeant John Joseph Langton, aged 29, from Liverpool, Sergeant Gary Paul Quilliam, aged 42, from Manchester, Corporal Oliver Simon Dicketts, The Parachute Regiment, aged 27, Marine Joseph David Windall, Royal Marines, aged 22, and Ranger Anare Draiva, 1 Royal Irish Regiment, aged 27, from Fiji.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Lance Corporal Jonathan Peter Hetherington, 14 Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare), aged 22, from South Wales, Corporal Bryan James Budd, 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, aged 29, from Ripon, Lance Corporal Sean Tansey, The Life Guards, aged 26, from Washington, Tyne and Wear, Private Leigh Reeves, Royal Logistics Corps, aged 25, from Leicester, Private Andrew Barrie Cutts, Air Assault Support Regiment, Royal Logistics Corps, aged 19, from Mansfield, Captain Alex Eida, Royal Horse Artillery, aged 29, from Surrey, Second Lieutenant Ralph Johnson, Household Cavalry Regiment, aged 24, from Windsor, Lance Corporal Ross Nicholls, Blues and Royals, aged 27, from Edinburgh, Private Damien Jackson, 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, aged 19, from South Shields, Tyne and Wear, Corporal Peter Thorpe, Royal Signals, aged 27, from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, Lance Corporal Jabron Hashmi, Intelligence Corps, aged 24, from Birmingham, and Captain David Patton, The Parachute Regiment, aged 38.]

[That this House salutes the bravery of the armed forces who served in Afghanistan and records with sorrow the deaths of Sergeant Paul Bartlett, Royal Marines, aged 35, Captain Jim Phillipson, 7 Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, aged 29, from St Albans, Hertfordshire, Lance Corporal Peter Edward Craddock, 1st Battalion The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, aged 31, Corporal Mark Cridge, 7 Signal Regiment, aged 25, Lance Corporal Steven Sherwood, 1st Battalion The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Light Infantry, aged 23, from Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, Private Jonathan Kitulagoda, The Rifle Volunteers, aged 23, from Clifton, Bedfordshire, Sergeant Robert Busuttil, the Royal Logistic Corps, Corporal John Gregory, the Royal Logistic Corps, and Private Darren John George, the Royal Anglian Regiment.]

Is it not time to initiate an inquiry into the Helmand incursion? In 2006, we were told that we were going in for three years in the hope that not a shot would be fired; at that time, only two British soldiers had been killed in combat. Should we not inquire into the matter, which was possibly the worst military blunder in our history since the charge of the Light Brigade?

[Mr Hague]

If we were to make a list of military blunders throughout history, it would be long and substantial before we came to anything in the last few years.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point. The next step is for the House to have a debate or a statement from the Defence Secretary in the coming weeks, given our withdrawal from Afghanistan, about the sacrifices made and what has been achieved. Sometimes more has been achieved on some issues in Afghanistan than we get the credit for. There will be either a debate or a statement, and I will be following the matter up.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

When it comes to the vote on the European arrest warrant, among other matters, may we have the fullest possible debate so that we can understand the safeguards that have been negotiated and whether they are indeed adequate?

[Mr Hague]

We will be able to have a debate about those things—[Hon. Members: “When?] Understandably, the Opposition ask when, but understandably I will announce it when I am ready to. It will take place within the parameters that the Prime Minister set out.

As my hon. Friend says, it will be important to be able to look at these things in detail. Good work in Government in recent years has changed how the European arrest warrant works. Our domestic changes mean that we can refuse arrest warrants in minor cases and ensure that a British judge considers whether extradition is proportionate. We can block an arrest warrant where the incident does not amount to a crime under UK law. We can prevent lengthy pre-trial detention. Many of the concerns that were correctly expressed when the European arrest warrant was brought in have successfully been addressed over recent years.

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

I will try to help the Leader of the House out with talking about the economy. May we have a debate recognising the contributions that universities in this country have made to the British economy and international economy? I am thinking particularly of the university of Warwick, which celebrates its 50th birthday in the coming months.

[Mr Hague]

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the university of Warwick on its anniversary and many other universities on their work. I cannot offer a debate, although I hope we would not disagree about the importance of this. We are fortunate in this country to have many of the leading universities of the world. That is part of the major contribution that Britain makes to science, to health, and to so many issues right across the globe, and it is very important that we always continue to do so.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

There is no better example of welfare reform in action than giving children the economic security of growing up in a household in which people earn a regular pay packet. The Leader of the House is right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the proportion of workless households is now the lowest since records began. Coming on the back of the largest ever annual fall in unemployment, does not that strengthen the case for a full day’s economic debate, with a vote, on the day of the autumn statement?

[Mr Hague]

There is a very good case for economic debates. The Chancellor will present the autumn statement in the usual way, but I hope there will be a great deal of scope to discuss economic matters after that. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the issue of workless households. The number of workless households has gone down by 670,000 since the last general election, and the number of households where no one has ever worked has gone down by 50,000. That is an enormous change in this country that would never have happened under the policies of the Labour party.

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

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Foreign Secretary to find out whether the UK could benefit from an emergency cap on all migrants from within—and, indeed, without—the European Community, so that in future no more than 100,000 bodies are allowed?

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister has been speaking about this subject, and he will speak about it further in the coming weeks, because it will be important in what the party to which he and I belong believes should be a renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union after the next general election. It is an important issue in that context. We have already taken many measures, such as reducing entitlement to benefits, including jobseeker’s allowance, on arrival in this country. However, I am not aware of any workable proposal for a cap under existing laws and treaties.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Justice on fixed-term recalls? I think that most people around the country will believe, and would expect, that when a criminal is released from prison early, if they commit another offence before the end of their original sentence they will be sent back to prison for the full duration of that sentence. However, 42% of recalls are now 28-day fixed-term recalls. In the first nine months of last year, 1,260 burglars were given 28-day fixed-term recalls instead of serving the full length of their original sentence. May we have a statement about this, because it causes a lot of alarm to many of our constituents and puts people at unnecessary risk of being a victim of crime?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and he will not be the only one with questions about it. As he may be aware, the next session of Justice questions is on 11 November—a week on Tuesday—so I encourage him to raise these subjects directly with the Justice Secretary then.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the importance of ancient woodland in the west midlands? In my constituency, proposals for HS2, despite some recent mitigations, will do significant damage to ancient woodland near Hints, and now Lafarge Tarmac has announced that it wants to demolish vast tracts of ancient woodland in Hopwas wood in order to quarry for gravel, outraging my constituents. A debate would allow us to discuss the importance of ancient woodland and how we can protect it.

[Mr Hague]

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend speaks for the concerns of many of his constituents on this. As he knows, the hybrid Bill on the first phase of HS2 is in Committee, where petitions are being heard. Ancient woodlands are a very important part of our national heritage. Where it has not been possible to avoid such sites in relation to HS2, we have been seeking refinements to the proposed line. I am sure he knows that we are committed to ensuring that appropriate mitigation measures are in place, including the transplantation of ancient woodland soils, where practicable, and the planting of 2 million trees during phase 1 of HS2.

Backbench Business

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

UK Drugs Policy

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In calling Caroline Lucas to move the motion, I congratulate her on the award she received last night at the Pink News awards in Speaker’s House, which I hope will enjoy the acclamation of her colleagues across the Chamber.

11:59

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that drug-related harms and the costs to society remain high; further notes that the independent UK Drugs Policy Commission highlighted the fact that Government is spending around £3 billion a year on policies that are often counter-productive; believes that an evidence-based approach is required in order for Parliament and the Government to pursue the most effective drugs policy in the future; welcomes the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its Ninth Report of 2012-13, HC 184, that the Government consider all the alternatives to the UK’s failing drug laws and learn from countries that have adopted a more evidence-based approach; notes that the Government has responded positively to this recommendation and is in the process of conducting an international comparators study to consider the effectiveness of national drug policies adopted by a range of countries; and calls on the Government to conduct an authoritative and independent cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and to publish the results of those studies within the next 12 months.

Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to open this debate and would like to start by thanking both the Backbench Business Committee for its support and the nearly 135,000 people who signed the petition I set up on the No. 10 website, which has enabled us to have this debate.

The motion notes that drug-related harms and the costs to society remain high. It makes the case that there is a wealth of evidence to that effect and calls on the Government to conduct an authoritative and independent cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and to publish the results of those studies within the next 12 months.

The motion has been very carefully written so as not to promote one policy model over and above another. It simply advances the principle that our drugs policy should be based on evidence of what works to reduce harm to individuals, communities and families affected by drugs misuse. In order to get that evidence, we need a thorough analysis and assessment of the current legislation, including comparing it with alternative models. For that reason, I hope that hon. Members who are in favour of a prohibition-based drugs policy, as well as those who advocate alternative approaches, will support this motion, because, in essence, what it seeks to do is get the evidence.

Since the 1971 Act was passed, there has been no process of reviewing whether it is achieving its dual objectives of reducing drugs misuse and the associated social harms.

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

I agree with the hon. Lady. It is about 30-odd years since the Act was introduced and there should be a reassessment to see how we can bring it up to date with a proper policy.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and absolutely agree with him. Reviews take place in many other policy areas to check whether objectives are being met, and it is high time we had such a review of the 1971 Act.

The Government’s drugs strategy is itself subject to review, but that is a self-limiting process. In other words, it intends to look only at value for money and in terms only of whether the amount spent is more or less than the value of the positive outcomes. That review will be carried out in 2015 and it will not consider whether other approaches would be better value for money. Neither will it include the negative outcomes—the presumably unintended consequences—of the policy in its calculations.

I warmly welcome today’s publication of the Government’s international comparators study. I pay tribute to the Minister for Crime Prevention, who is in his place, for the leadership he has shown in the process. The study has been long awaited. It was commissioned on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee and is a considered review of the different approaches to drug policy pursued around the world.

The review indicates that introducing an alternative to prohibition would not, contrary to some claims, boost drug use, and it could save millions of pounds if users were treated for addiction rather than jailed. It seems that the evidence for the issue of drug use to be moved to the Department of Health, in order for the focus to be on treating rather than punishing addiction, is overwhelming as well. This is just the first step towards a drugs policy that puts harm reduction first, and I welcome it warmly, but we urgently need to follow up on this comparison of international approaches and learn the lessons from it for our own UK-based legislation. That is why this debate is so important.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I also congratulate the hon. Lady, not only on her award, which is well deserved, but on her work on this issue? In respect of following up, I also welcome the report led by the Minister. The Home Affairs Committee, prompted by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), will hold a separate session specifically on our last set of recommendations. It will be held in Cambridge, in honour of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope we can persuade the hon. Lady to come along and speak.

[Caroline Lucas]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for all his leadership on this issue as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). I am very happy to take up that kind invitation. To be serious, I am very glad that the Home Affairs Committee is doing that extra piece of very important work.

Such work is important because drug misuse destroys individuals, families and communities, and an ineffective drugs policy only compounds that damage. All too often, success in the war on drugs is measured in numbers of arrests or seizures of drugs, but many of us believe that we should assess whether the harms associated with drug misuse are rising or declining.

The Home Secretary acknowledged in the foreword to her Government’s drug strategy:

“Individuals do not take drugs in isolation from what is happening in the rest of their lives.”

I agree. Poverty, social exclusion and inequality all have an impact on drug use and drug markets. Research by the Equality Trust has shown a clear and demonstrable correlation between drug misuse and inequality. There is a strong tendency for drug abuse to be more common in countries, such as the UK, that are more unequal. Ending social exclusion must therefore be at the heart of any effective strategy to reduce drug-related harms. To do that, we need to marshal the evidence.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Contrary to press reports, many of us on the Conservative Benches believe that evidence-based policy would be more effective in dealing with the scourge of drugs.

[Caroline Lucas]

What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely true. In a sense, this is not a party political matter: people from across this House and the other place believe that we should have an evidence-based approach, rather than an approach that for too long has been dictated by fear, particularly fear of the tabloids. It is important to have this debate.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her award, even though, as I was nominated for it, I feel some frustration. It has been a great pleasure to work with her on this issue. Her voice is, and I hope will continue to be, very valuable in this place. Will she confirm that many newspapers are now coming out in favour of change, and that the public want change? Today, The Sun shows that roughly two thirds of people want a reform of drugs policy.

[Caroline Lucas]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being nominated, and I am sure he will win next time. His point is incredibly important. Until now, politicians often thought that they were reflecting public opinion, but they are now massively behind it, as the poll in The Sun absolutely demonstrates.

It strikes me that a time of austerity, with the Government seemingly looking under every last stone to find money to save, is an odd time not to consider drugs policy, given that so much money is invested in the current drugs regime. Yet drugs policy seems to be completely divorced from the usual considerations about public spending and the good use of taxpayers’ money, and we simply have no proper public mechanism for knowing whether the money spent on the so-called war on drugs has been put to good effect.

No one now buys alcohol in unmarked bottles from the back of a pub—that would be dangerous and unnecessary—but for 40 years we have left our children to do exactly that with drugs. There is no denying that drug misuse has the potential to wreck lives, but surely it is time to be honest about the damage caused by the drug laws, which can cause a proliferation of criminality and public harm. The entire drugs trade has been handed over to the worlds’ racketeers and gangsters. The drugs market has soared, and that has brought untold misery. Essentially, the current market is almost wholly uncontrolled.

From speaking to young people in my constituency, it is clear that many of them can get hold of drugs far more easily than alcohol, which is surely wrong. When someone tries to get hold of alcohol, they at least have to show an ID card if they are thought to be under age. Drug dealers do not care about someone’s ID or anything else; they care only about their profits. I believe that the current policy is based on a deliberate ignorance about the effect of drugs.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, and on her extraordinary petition, which has 130,000 signatures. I understand that 20% of people who have taken heroin said that they got it for the first time in jail. If we cannot control drugs in jail, how on earth are we supposed to control them on our streets?

[Caroline Lucas]

That is an extremely good point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention, which speaks for itself.

If we are to design a better drugs policy that is based on evidence, we need to agree on the objectives of drugs policy. For me, it is about protecting people, particularly the young and vulnerable, as well as reducing crime, improving health, promoting security and development, providing good value for money and protecting human rights. In setting out why that is important, I will say a little more about the impact of the current drugs policy and why I believe it adds to the case for a review; I will talk a little about the growing consensus on rethinking the current approach to drugs policy; and I will say a little about Brighton and Hove, where my constituency is situated, where the approach of following the evidence as far as possible has delivered benefits.

Before doing any of that, I would like to talk about Martha. Martha’s mother, Anne-Marie Cockburn, is in Parliament with us today. Like so many parents, she had always wanted to protect her child. However, on 20 July 2013, she learned that that was not always possible. On that day, Martha swallowed half a gram of MDMA powder—ecstasy—and died. She was 15 years old. Today, 30 October, would have been Martha’s 17th birthday. She is not celebrating that birthday because the Misuse of Drugs Act did not protect her. Making MDMA illegal did not protect Martha. We owe it to her and to Anne-Marie, and to the many other people who have died drug-related deaths and their families and loved ones, to ensure that in future each and every one of us is offered the best possible protection by our drugs laws.

In her incredibly moving blog, “What Martha Did Next”, Anne-Marie writes:

“Had Martha known that what she was about to take was 91% pure, she would probably have taken a lot less, in fact I’d go as far as to say that she might still be alive.”

Anne-Marie argues that, under prohibition, it is impossible fully to educate people such as Martha, because there is no way to tell what drugs contain. Prohibition has not stopped risk-taking, but it has made those risks much more dangerous. Anne-Marie suggests that we are failing to protect children such as Martha—that we are letting them down—and that, alongside deterring young people from taking drugs, we need a regulatory model that reduces the risk if drugs do get into the hands of young people such as Martha.

I agree with Anne-Marie. Perhaps many people in the Chamber will not. However, the fact that Martha is not celebrating her 17th birthday today is surely the first of many good reasons to carry out an impact assessment of our drugs laws. We urgently need to know whether prohibition is an obstacle to education about drugs, and whether our children would be better protected by alternatives, such as strict regulation. Despite all the accusations that are thrown at those who are in favour of drug policy reform, the bottom line is that it is not about being pro-drugs, but about saving lives. The only credible way to do that is to know whether our policies are up to the job.

That is especially important because there is powerful evidence that the so-called war on drugs is making things worse. Far from being neutral, in many instances the current model pushes users towards more harmful products, behaviours and environments. Let me give two examples of what I mean. In doing so, it is crucial to distinguish between the suffering that is caused by drugs and that which is caused by drugs policy.

First, the vast majority of drug-related offending happens not because people take drugs, but because of drugs policy. Users are driven to burglary and theft to buy drugs at vastly inflated prices in an unregulated market. There is enormous potential significantly to reduce such crime and its impact on our communities under a different system.

Secondly, on legal highs, according to research into synthetic drugs by Demos and the UK Drug Policy Commission, 40 new substances emerged on to the market in 2010, compared with 24 in the previous year. By 2014, the figure had grown to 80 different synthetic drugs. Professor Les Iversen, the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, recently admitted that drug control legislation is being forced to play “cat and mouse”. Such substances are routinely banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act, but that simply spawns more substances that, in turn, are banned. The legal process cannot keep up.

The Government have published a report today that recommends that all novel synthetic psychoactive substances, or legal highs as they are more widely known, be banned. I appreciate what they are trying to do with that policy, but I think that it is misguided. It fails to appreciate that many legal highs are the products of prohibition. Synthetic cannabis, for example, would not exist if there were a legally regulated supply of real cannabis. Nor does the policy recognise our knowledge that prohibition—in other words, banning things—does not stop people taking drugs, but simply increases the risks.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the only people the current policy really benefits are the drug lords and crime lords who sell this disgusting stuff to our children? If her policies were realised, it would put those people out of business for good.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the current—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady has been speaking for 15 minutes, so I am sure that we are nearing the end of the opening speech. [Interruption.] I assure her that we are nearing the end of the speech.

[Caroline Lucas]

Of course I am getting near the end, Mr Deputy Speaker. With that in mind, I shall simply agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton).

The current policy is essentially putting users at greater risk by driving the creation of yet more ways to stay one step ahead of the law and by making research into the harms associated with new substances much more difficult.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

Many of the new synthetic drugs are sold in shops up and down the country. If we do nothing to control the way in which the shops operate, such drugs will continue to be available. Most of them are sold over the counter and very few are sold illicitly in clubs. Where will the hon. Lady’s reforms lead us in terms of banning such shops from operating?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are two ways to respond. The motion simply says that we should look at the evidence. I am not saying where that will lead us. On the shops that sell so-called legal highs, we are not talking about an absence of control. On the contrary, we are talking about regulation and control. My argument with the Government’s statement on legal highs is that it assumes that if we ban them and drive them underground, they will go away. They will not. It is likely that they will be even more dangerous and that people will not know what they are taking.

One proposal in Transform’s blueprint for a drugs policy, which I warmly recommend, is a step-by-step process by which we look at how we regulate and control drugs. For example, it might be possible to get hold of them in a licensed pharmacy if people show a certain level of ID. There are all sorts of ways in which we could regulate and control the drugs market. I repeat that this is not about legalising drugs or having a free-for-all, but about bringing regulation and control back into a market that is in the hands of gangs and other people who do not care what is in the substances. They do not care about the purity of a substance; they care only about their profit. I stress again that this is about regulation and control.

Although, sadly, we do not systematically collect and assess data for the purposes of ensuring that the Misuse of Drugs Act is the best way to meet our drugs policy objects, there is a wealth of informative data out there. The evidence that I have seen is enough to persuade me of the need for drugs policy reform. However, I repeat that the motion simply asks for an independent review of the evidence. I therefore hope that those who do not agree with my interpretation of the evidence will still support the motion.

I thank the Minister for Crime Prevention again for his work on the Government’s comparators report. It shows that there is a wealth of evidence from many other countries that we could have a very different drugs policy in this country. In order to protect people in this country in the most effective way possible, it is incumbent on us as a Parliament to look at the comparators report, learn from it and see how we can make our drugs policy more effective.

12:17

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I welcome her bringing this debate to the House.

I will speak about a harm-reduction approach to drugs policy. I do not hold a moralistic view on the taking of drugs, other than my objection to people supporting one of the most evil worldwide businesses or cartels. It always surprises me that people who object to buying coffee in Starbucks and who refuse to support Amazon are quite happy to support cartels that cause untold misery to hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Until such time as we have a change in drugs policy, I hope that people who support the drugs industry will reflect on the wider harms that they, personally, are causing.

Talking of harm reduction, I welcome an approach that says, “Let’s look at the evidence and be driven by the evidence in what we do.” However, there is one piece of evidence on which we should reflect, which is that drug use is falling in this country. According to surveys from the Office for National Statistics, the level of class A drug use among young people—16 to 24-year-olds—has fallen from 9.2% in 1996 to 4.8% in 2012-13. That is a significant drop.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the approach that she is taking. However, we need to be really clear about the evidence that drug use is going down. The only real model that we can see over time is that there was a 32% increase in respect of some of the most serious drugs, heroin and morphine, last year. Cannabis use has been coming down, but that has happened irrespective of the policy context and of whether it has been class B, class C or anything else.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. Cannabis use among 16 to 24-year-olds is now at its lowest level since records began, at around 13.5%. I think the view we sometimes hear that we are losing the war on drugs is factually incorrect, and there are many markers.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I have great respect for the hon. Lady’s experience in this matter. Does she see a connection between the falling use of illegal drugs that she is highlighting, and the rising use of legal highs?

[Dr Wollaston]

Legal highs are a rather separate issue. I agree we must consider that they may have unintended consequences, but I would not follow that as a direct cause or link. I do not agree with that.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Wollaston]

May I make a little progress and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman?

I would like to focus on cannabis for a moment—that is the issue I have most correspondence about—and on its harms. Cannabis is often presented as somehow a harmless product, and if we compare it with alcohol and consider the numbers of deaths and injuries, alcohol undoubtedly currently causes far greater harm in our society. However, before we assume that it must therefore be acceptable to legalise cannabis, I want to focus a little on its harms. In the short term, there is double the risk of a car crash for people driving under the influence of cannabis, and in the longer term, one in six young users will become dependent. It simply not true to say that cannabis is not a drug of dependence—it is.

For me, this is about the impact of cannabis on young users and teenagers, because they will double their risk of a psychotic illness. In my career I have met many families and young people whose lives have been completely devastated as a result of psychosis—I come to this debate from that viewpoint and my real concern about what psychosis does to people, because many of them did not recover. That is particularly important for those who have a family history of psychotic illness. For example, if someone has a first degree relative with a history of schizophrenia and they start using cannabis as a teenager, they will double their risk of a psychotic illness from 10% to 20%—a significant increase.

[Dr Huppert]

It is always interesting to listen to the hon. Lady, and I do not think anybody is trying to make the case that drugs, legal or illegal, are harmless. Does she accept, however, that because we make it an illegal system, we cannot do what has been done in California, for example, where medicinal marijuana has allowed the breeding of strains of marijuana that are less psycho-harmful?

[Dr Wollaston]

That is why I want to see the longer term results from Colorado and Washington state, and whether as a result of that system the harm to young people from cannabis is reduced. Personally, I think it is too early to say what the effects will be, but I will be following the results closely. If I see clear evidence of harm reduction, I will completely change my approach to this issue.

People often write to me and say, “Well look at Portugal where there has been a reduction in drug use”, but the Czech Republic, which has the same approach in not prosecuting people for personal use, has one of the highest levels of cannabis use across Europe. We must be careful about how selectively we quote from the evidence.

[Mike Thornton]

I have great respect for the hon. Lady’s skill and knowledge, which is probably greater than mine. In Portugal they take a great deal of care to look after the people brought to their attention who have problems with drugs, and they treat them properly, which works. Perhaps in the Czech Republic they do not use the same approach. It could be that that is the case.

[Dr Wollaston]

There is certainly a strong case for a much better medical approach to drug use—certainly for hard drug use. My point is about relative uses. People often write to me and say that we would cut cannabis use if we took a different approach to decriminalisation. As I say, I am not dogmatic about the issue, and I would like to see the longer term outcomes from legalisation in Washington state and Colorado.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Wollaston]

May I finish a few points about the medical aspects of this issue? There is also the issue of educational achievement for long-term, regular cannabis users in adolescence, because we know there is a reduction in their school performance, and it is more likely that they will end up with cognitive impairment later on. Whatever we do, we must be mindful of the effect of our policies on young people. The harms are greatest for young people who start using cannabis heavily at an early age. I hope the Minister will assure the House that when we review drugs policy he will particularly focus on its effects on young people, so that we do not head down a route that could lead to greater harm to young people as a result of policy changes.

12:25

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I was not planning to speak in this debate, because I felt that most of what I have to say would be covered by the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). However, I want to emphasise a couple of important points, which I hope will help the House to understand the issue.

The Home Affairs Committee has looked carefully at this issue and took a year producing a report, including a visit to Portugal. I was not able to go, but other colleagues, including the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) and for Cambridge, as well as the then hon. Member for Rochester and Strood, went to Portugal and provided a good outline of what is happening there. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), Chair of the Health Committee, is right: we need to make comparisons and see what works elsewhere. That was reflected in the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue.

The main conclusion of the Committee’s report in 2012 was to urge the Government to initiate a royal commission, which we said could be done in a short period of time. We were not in favour of a royal commission that would last an age, and we felt that it could be completed to a timetable. Had that been accepted in 2012, we would have had the results by now; sadly, the idea was not taken up by the Government. I do not think a royal commission will be set up in the next six months, but I hope that future Governments will see it as a way of ensuring that all voices on drugs policy are heard. There are many voices out there, as we see from the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, many of whom have great expertise in this matter. Let us hear all those voices, take the evidence, and come to a conclusion. A Select Committee can only do so much—all Select Committees try their best to cover a full agenda—and a royal commission would enable us to do much more.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of his Committee very rapidly to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—I also raised it in the Chamber 30 years ago—about people going into prison and coming out as heroin addicts? There needs to be a review of the way that prisons combat drugs, and I hope the Home Affairs Committee will take up the issue rapidly.

[Keith Vaz]

The first point I was going to make about drugs policy after calling for a royal commission was about prisons. The issue was raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and brilliantly and eloquently exposed in the book by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is sitting behind the Minister. He has great knowledge and expertise from his years at the criminal Bar, and he mentioned many different aspects of the criminal justice system. There is a whole chapter on drugs in prison, and I commend the book to Members of the House. He may even have copies of it to sell to Members after the debate.

The Committee called for mandatory testing of prisoners on entry and exit, and we wanted to ensure that on exit, ex-prisoners are met at the gates and given the treatment they deserve, so that they do not reoffend and go back to prison. We found, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, that a quarter of prisoners first discover a taste for drugs while in prison. That is a shocking statistic and the number may even have gone up. Drugs are being used in prison and it is not acceptable. The prison authorities need to do much more, but we need to rehabilitate people, so that they do not reoffend as soon as they come out. A former Minister with responsibility for prisons is in the Chamber. He will have more knowledge of that, but I hope we get commitments from the Government and the Minister that more will be done.

[Ian Swales]

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, in any work his Committee does on drugs in prison, we do not narrowly define drugs? Legal and illegal drugs have been mentioned in the debate. I know from a visit to my local prison that the main drug misuse is of prescription drugs.

[Keith Vaz]

That was going to be my second point. I have a feeling that Liberal Democrat Members have a copy of my speech.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is impossible. You were not going to speak.

[Keith Vaz]

Exactly. The Liberal Democrats have an incredible mind. They are able to predict exactly what hon. Members are going to say.

Correctly, the hon. Gentleman referred to prescription drugs, which had not been mentioned. The Committee was extremely concerned by the increase in the use of prescription drugs. Indeed, when the Committee was in Miami, as hon. Members would expect it to be, en route for Colombia to look at where 70% of the cocaine in our country comes from—we have done our homework—we heard of the first case of an American doctor being prosecuted for prescribing drugs. As we know, drugs become currency in prisons and outside. That is why there is a responsibility on the medical profession to ensure that doctors prescribe effectively and understand what is happening to prescription drugs if certain patients keep coming in and asking for them. It is important to ensure that we consider the availability of those drugs, which are perfectly legal.

I have not seen the Government statement on psychoactive substances so I cannot comment on it—I believe it was a written statement, and they never send the Committee advance copies. I just remind the House that the Committee was clear that the onus ought to be on the retailers who sell psychoactive substances. I did not realise that the Government were calling for a complete ban, but where psychoactive substances are sold, we should prosecute retailers for selling them. There is no point waiting for someone to die. It is essential we do something at the beginning by getting those who sell the drugs in the first place.

My final point is on money laundering and the weakness of successive Governments’ regimes to deal with criminality. As we have heard, the drugs trade is the second most profitable illegal activity in the world. It is worth some $380 billion a year, most of which enters the financial system, some through offshore areas such as Gibraltar and other areas of that kind. We need to ensure that authorities co-operate. I am not singling Gibraltar out because you are in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Just for correctness, I am not the chair of the Gibraltar group, but I was in the past. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman needs to take this up with the new chair.

[Keith Vaz]

There is no criticism of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar or of anyone in Gibraltar, but we have discovered that some areas of the world are being used to launder money from drugs. Our financial authorities are not strong enough to deal with the way in which money goes through the system. That is why the Committee believes that bankers at the very senior level should be held criminally responsible if they know or are aware of laundering, or if they did not take action to prevent it.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to consider asset recovery to deal with money laundering and criminal actions. He will be aware that we have an opportunity to consider that under the Serious Crime Bill. Does he share my concern about the drafting of the asset recovery clauses? Will his Committee consider that before we debate the Bill? Does he agree that the Bill needs to take on board lessons from places such as Italy?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am not sure that the Committee has time to consider that before Christmas, but I will do so with him. Let us sit down and see whether we can get an amendment together. I am happy to support him to make the Bill tougher, because it needs to be.

I commend the proposers of the motion.. This is a very important debate, and we do not debate UK drugs policy often enough. We need to ensure that we have more time to debate this serious and important subject.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Can I suggest everybody works on keeping their speeches to around the 10-minute mark?

12:35

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to take part in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I am not sure whether it will cause her or me more embarrassment among our supporters that we find ourselves sharing company and the same side of the argument.

Some years ago, when the debate about drugs erupted, as it does from time to time, the media went round more or less every Front Bencher and asked whether they had ever smoked pot. I was one of the very few who never had, and I have no intention ever of doing so. That gave me a clear enough head to look at this issue on the basis of evidence, which is what the hon. Lady’s motion urges us to do.

I focused on the important distinction between soft and hard drugs, and on whether cannabis should be treated differently from hard drugs. I concluded that it should be, and that we should move to the legalisation of cannabis. We could have a small number of legal outlets while banning the active marketing and promotion of cannabis, its sale to minors and its consumption in public places.

I concluded that a move to legalisation would have a number of advantages. First, about 80% of the effort in the so-called war on drugs goes on trying to prohibit cannabis. Much less effort and resources go into the prohibition of hard drugs, which cause the greatest harm and the greatest danger. Therefore, if we could provide some legal outlets for cannabis, we would be able to focus more of the effort on the drugs that do the greatest harm.

Secondly, I concluded that the effort of trying to prohibit cannabis was ineffective. Until recently, we had a higher prevalence and usage of cannabis in this country than in Holland, where there are legal outlets. Prohibition was therefore ineffective.

Thirdly, I concluded that we were undermining respect for the law by having a law that was widely disregarded, and one that was harder to justify in a country which, after all, legalises the sale of alcohol, which can do at least as much damage as cannabis, and legalises the sale of nicotine and cigarettes, which can have more lethal consequences in the long term.

One key argument often used by those who advocate keeping cannabis on a par with hard drugs, and criminalising and prohibiting its sale in this country, is that it is supposedly a gateway drug, meaning that it leads people ineluctably to sample cocaine, and then tempts them to go on to heroin. They say that, therefore, its sale should be prohibited. I believe that the reverse is true: because the sale of cannabis is illegal, we drive soft drugs users into the arms of hard drugs pushers. They can obtain cannabis only from criminal gangs, who will want them to upgrade to drugs that are more addictive and more profitable.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real gateway is tobacco use? Most people smoke cannabis with tobacco, and that poses the greatest risk of long-term harm.

[Mr Lilley]

I will, for the sake of argument, agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that is a rather different argument from the one I am addressing.

The most important single reason for legalising the sale of cannabis is to break the link between the sale of hard drugs and the sale of soft drugs. There are only two coherent and rational policies as far as soft drugs are concerned. The Swedish approach is one of toughly enforced prohibition. I looked briefly at the report and thought it was a bit weak on analysis of the Swedish situation, but I will look at it more deeply. The other is a version of the Dutch approach, which is now the approach of a number of countries, where legal outlets are available. The worst option is falling between two stools and decriminalising use while leaving the supply in the hands of drug gangs. That leaves us open to driving soft drugs users into the arms of hard drugs pushers.

I say these things not as someone who is soft on drugs believes there is nothing is wrong with taking drugs. I believe that even if there were no health disadvantages from using drugs, there is a moral case against using them. However, just as I want to decriminalise and legalise, I do not want to de-moralise drugs. Ultimately, wherever possible moral choices should be left to individuals. In so far as we are going to be no worse off—the Dutch experience shows not a higher number of users, but fewer people pushed into harder and worse drugs—let us look at the evidence closely, and be willing to accept that although drug use may be wrong it does not automatically have to be criminal.

Lots of things are wrong. Adultery is wrong, but we do not make it a criminal offence. Lots of other things are against the moral law in which I believe, but we do not make them a criminal offence. Let us look at drugs without going to the opposite extreme of saying that any use of drugs is desirable and entirely value-free. Let us look at the evidence and see whether the policies we have been pursuing in this country have been ineffectual, have focused the effort where it is least needed and not where it is most needed, have undermined respect for the law, and have driven soft drugs users into the arms of hard drugs pushers. I hope the House will support the motion.

12:42

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). We are both old lags in this debate and were both mentioned in the drugs report of 2002.

I am more optimistic than I have been during the past 27 years in which I have made 28 speeches on this matter in this House. At one time we had an annual debate, which was an amazing ritual. The Government, whoever they were, said how wonderfully and successfully things were going, and the Opposition would say, “Yes, we agree.” One moment I prize was when, about half way through, both Front-Bench speakers had to leave the Chamber for a fix—they were both chain smokers. They saw nothing wrong in denouncing young people and then going off to any of the 16 bars in this place and having a whisky and a cigarette. They would have a couple of paracetamol in their pockets for the headaches they were going to have the next morning. They could not see any contradiction between that and laying down laws for young people.

The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about the myth that the use of drugs has gone down because of Government action. There is absolutely no correlation. Let us look at the past 43 years. When the Drugs Misuse Act 1971 was passed with the support of all parties—always a worrying thing—there were fewer than 1,000 heroin and cocaine addicts in the whole country. The last figure I saw was 320,000. There has been a steady increase over the years. The reason there has now been a decline in cannabis use and other activities by young people is that they have a new addiction. They have an almost universal addiction to their Tablets and iPhones—that is where their attention is going. It is all to do with fashion. Drug taking might be cool one year and naff the following year. It all depends on that.

The hon. Lady made a point about Portugal, which is a great success story. It changed its policy in 2001. Within a very short time the number of deaths went down by 50%,and it does not have the cost of prosecutions and so on. It has been a continuing success. The change in the Czech Republic is relatively recent and we have yet to see the results, but there are encouraging signs.

I have to apologise to the Minister. I was so ungracious as to believe that he was going to follow the path of all the other Ministers with responsibility for drugs, including some very distinguished ones. I remember when the beloved Mo Mowlam was in charge of drugs. Her letters would comprise the civil service reply and a little note on the top, written by her, saying, “See you in the Strangers Bar to tell you what I really think.” [Laughter.] When the current Minister came before the Home Affairs Committee, I asked him whether he had had the compulsory lobotomy to become a Minister with responsibility for drugs in exchange for his red box. It was not true! The Minister stuck to his views, and here we have the first ever intelligent document on drugs from Government in 43 years—the only one that is evidence-based. We have had evidence-free, prejudice-rich policies for years from politicians who were cowardly. They would not take on the tabloids. Some years ago, the Liberal Democrats decided that they were going to pursue the policy that we are encouraging today and they were denounced by The Sun for going to pot.

There is cowardice because of prejudice, but we know that public opinion is way ahead of us. The public know the stupidity and impotence of our drugs policy. I regularly ask how many prisons in Britain are drug free. I always get the answer that there are none. If we cannot keep hard drugs out of prisons, how on earth can we keep them out of schools, clubs or anywhere else? It is a pretence.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Women go into prisons like Holloway drug-free and come out with a drug habit, such are the difficulties of keeping drugs out of prison.

[Paul Flynn]

There is a splendid book called “Invisible Women” about Holloway prison, which I commend to everyone. It tells the terrible story of what is going on there.

Another point about prison is that one medicine that was given to young women who had been badly treated and were mutilating themselves was largactil. There was a name for them in prison: they were called muppets. This was a drug for those who had serious mental health problems. The whole sorry story of drugs in prison is one of abuse by many medicinal drugs. A blind eye was turned to cannabis use because it kept a lid on things. If prisoners were on alcohol they were aggressive, but if they were on cannabis they would give everyone a hug. That is how the prisons liked it. The prison policies pursued by all parties are completely hypocritical and they illustrate the futility of prohibition.

I received a call before I came to the House from someone talking about the use of medicinal cannabis, which I have supported for a very long time. It is not that I want to use it. I have never used any illegal drug and I have no plans to use cannabis. The point is the irrationality of the Government’s stand. Cannabis in its natural form is one of the oldest drugs in the world. It has been used on all continents for 5,000 years. Now, because we are nervous and it is an illegal drug, we allow people to have only little bits of cannabis. Dronabinol, nabilone or TAC are available, but they contain only a small number of ingredients from the hundreds in any natural substance.

[Mike Thornton]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very strange that a doctor can prescribe heroin in the form of diamorphine, a controlled and very dangerous drug, but not cannabis?

[Paul Flynn]

Indeed, and I would like to get on to that. We have just been involved in a war, which I mentioned at business questions. We went into Helmand province five years after we went into Afghanistan. We had lost only two soldiers by that time, but our main purpose in going in—hon. Members should read the speeches from 2006; I have just put them on the website—was all about stopping heroin being grown and ending the drug crop. In 2006, 90% of our heroin came from Afghanistan; yet here we are, years later, and 90% of our heroin still comes from Afghanistan. There is a difference, however: now it is cheaper because there is more of it. The efforts to control it were utterly futile, yet there is a shortage of morphine throughout the world—another issue that we have not addressed.

I come back to the point that we should look at the chemistry. Nobody knows what the effect of the various ingredients of natural cannabis is. It might well be that ingredient No. 36 neutralises ingredient No. 428. We do not know, and by stopping people having a natural drug that has proved to be beneficial, we are imposing torment on many who have serious problems, such as multiple sclerosis and other diseases that we know can be cured. It is prejudice that has driven our policies for all these years. I am heartened today by the Minister, by his courage and by the report, which is the only report—I repeat: we have waited 43 years for this—that is based on the truth and the evidence. Marvellous things are happening in other countries throughout the world, and there is a recognition that prohibition has been a curse.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

In the litany of good signs that the hon. Gentleman is seeing, I am quite certain that he will have read the article by Sir William Patey, who was our ambassador in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2012. He says:

“For the sake of both Afghans and British citizens, senior politicians must take responsibility for the failings of global prohibition, and take control of the drug trade through legal regulation.”

When someone like him says that, it is another reason to sit up and take notice.

[Paul Flynn]

That is absolutely right. We are following what happened with the prohibition of alcohol in America, where the deaths came from the use of distilled spirit. The content could not be controlled, and it was poisonous. We now have people taking drugs—often in the most concentrated form and in the most dangerous way—that are produced by people who are irresponsible. I believe that if we did not have prohibition, people would be using heroin beer and other things by now. In Amsterdam, they take their cannabis without smoking, because the danger—as with tobacco, where it is not the nicotine—is in smoking the substance. The best way would be if we relaxed about this and if people could have their drugs of choice—all dangerous and to be avoided if at all possible, but we cannot stop people seeking relaxation and comfort from drugs; that will go on. The way to do it is to end prohibition and for a courageous Government to reform our laws.

12:53

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who was an advocate of this cause well before it was fashionable. It is good to see him in his place still arguing for it. I also echo his praise for the fantastic work that my right hon. Friend the Minister has done, which means that we have now heard praise for his work from all parties present in the Chamber, even though some representative parties that are not here have been rather more critical of the stance he has taken. It is also good to hear a degree of unanimity in the comments expressed today. There are some differences, but they are in the nuances. There is not a principled difference; all the speeches have broadly called for change to our policies.

My belief is that the so-called war on drugs has simply not worked. What it has done is cause more harms than it has alleviated. That has been clear for quite a long time, and I and my party have long called for reform. It is not about being hard on drugs or soft on drugs; it is about being smart on drugs and doing the right thing. Of course drugs are harmful. Whether they are legal or illegal, and whether they are prescribed or not prescribed, tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine and heroin are all harmful things. They all cause harms—to people who take them, to other people and to society. The model for so long in this country and in many parts of the world has been based on the idea that when it comes to some substances—not tobacco and alcohol, but the other ones, for historical reasons—our aim should be to stop people taking them. The idea is to reduce the number of users, rather than looking at the harms the substances cause. That is the wrong goal and it has not worked.

Drug use is still high, with millions of people regularly breaking the law, which is not an effective disincentive. Hon. Members can talk to many police officers about this, but frankly it makes the law look silly when 4 million people a year are committing a criminal offence, of whom 100,000—randomly selected, but with somewhat more from poorer communities and black and minority ethnic groups—get arrested, with a few unlucky people, again disproportionately poorer people and those from black and minority ethnic groups, being thrown in jail. It does not work.

[Stephen Phillips]

I may come to this if I am lucky enough to catch your eye in due course, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do not think anyone else has made this point, but does it not also cause a lack of respect for the criminal law when every year 4 million people regularly break what is regarded as the criminal law for something that they do not think is a criminal offence?

[Dr Huppert]

Absolutely. If we asked people what sort of sentence it should be possible to get for having a spliff, they would not think that many years in jail was proportionate. I know that that does not always happen, but the maximum sentence in this instance brings the law into disrepute.

[Ms Abbott]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that politicians might just be behind public opinion on this question? A major tabloid paper reports today that it has polled its readers, who believe there should be a review of the legislation.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, as I said in an intervention. Politicians are behind, at least in what they are prepared to say. Another survey two years ago—I cannot remember which paper ran it—showed that 77% of MPs thought we should have reform, as long as they knew they would not be named in the survey and asked to introduce it. Politicians should have the courage of their convictions, and the public’s convictions, and take action.

I shall pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health Committee. We have indeed seen a reduction in the raw numbers—she is absolutely right—but I think that is largely because people are taking new psychoactive substances. We are seeing a huge increase in people taking legal alternatives, rather than illegal substances. The perversity of that is that we have pushed people to take substances whose safety we know less about. We know less about the harms and we are probably increasing the risk to those people very substantially. We should also look at the system. Smoking tobacco is more harmful than chewing khat, but why would we make the dangerous one legal and the not-so-dangerous one illegal? It seems like a very strange thing to do.

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I was delighted that the Chair, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is sadly not in his place, agreed when I kept insisting that we should have a look at this issue. We undertook a detailed study and we heard from experts around the world. We concluded, on a cross-party basis, a key objective:

“The principal aim of Government drugs policy should be first and foremost to minimise the damage caused to the victims of drug-related crime, drug users and others.”

That is a call to completely rethink how we do drugs policy: to focus on reducing the harm, not on how many people do things that we badge as illegal.

The Home Secretary of course rejected the report’s findings and just carried on with business as usual, but we had one key victory. We secured agreement for an international comparators study, which has been worked on by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) and, now, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention. That is what has come out today, and although there is a serious gap where some of the conclusions ought to be—one feels that one is being led towards something, only to find a missing paragraph saying what one should do—it is very clear. The fundamental point is that sounding tough does not matter. The rhetoric does not make any difference; it is about outcomes. The study says:

“Looking across different countries, there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country's approach and the prevalence of…drug use.”

That is key. If being tough actually reduced drug use around the world, we would have to look again, but it simply does not work. It creates extra harms, so the argument falls down.

What does work? There have been lots of academic studies. The thing that most reduces drug use is having a more equal society. Solving that may be beyond the scope of this debate, and certainly beyond my scope in the time I have left, but that is what will work—not tough laws, but a more equal society. Yet we continue with the tough approach. Every year we spend millions of pounds jailing something like 1,000 people for no offence other than possession. We are not talking about people who have burgled; we are talking about simple possession offences. They are not dealers; they are not doing worse things. Jailing them does not help them to deal with their addiction; if anything, it makes things worse for them and takes money that we could spend helping them instead of punishing them.

It is therefore really good progress that we now see acceptance from the Government that a tough drugs policy does not reduce usage. Contrary to what the Home Secretary said to the Home Affairs Committee, the Government have finally accepted that in Portugal decriminalisation and a focus on treatment have not led to more drug use.

We have the Minister on board, but we need to get the Home Secretary to agree to go ahead. We spend vast amounts of money on a drugs policy. Estimates vary between £3 billion and £10 billion a year, depending on which costs are included. Times are tight, so we should spend that money effectively. We should use police resources effectively, too. If police are kept busy dealing with simple possession offences, that is time and effort that they cannot use to settle violent or acquisitive crime, or indeed the gang crime that our war on drugs is fuelling. That is why so many police officers have spoken out.

The chief constable of Durham, Mike Barton, has argued for the decriminalisation of class A drugs, highlighting the fact that prohibition has put billions of pounds into the hands of the criminals he is supposed to be fighting. Many others say the same, including Chief Constable Tom Lloyd, my own former chief constable:

“Drug dealers all over the world are laughing at law enforcement…I want the end of prohibition and the start of control and regulation so we don’t have dealers on the street.”

He has also highlighted the harm done to young people, because for a huge proportion of them, their first contact with the law comes from being stopped and searched for drugs offences. When someone is convicted, according to Tom Lloyd:

“It seems hypocritical to saddle a young person with a criminal conviction that could blight their lives”.

Such people often have problems getting jobs and travelling in the future. This causes huge problems. Because of our criminalised system, we have no control over what drugs are cut with—and these cutting agents are often worse than the drugs themselves.

We also have huge problems with discrimination. For black and minority ethnic groups, the use of harder drugs is lower, but arrests are higher and they are twice as likely to proceed to court than white people. That is not right; we should not be doing that. With more than half of stop and searches being for possession, even the Home Secretary has acknowledged the problems that can result from that.

We need a new system, focusing on treatment, education and rehabilitation and dealing with the harms caused by drugs. How we pay for that is a challenge. The answer is to take money from the criminal justice system. We need to divert the money from spending on policing and prison towards spending on helping people to break their addiction. My party has called for exactly that, continuing to spearhead those calls. At our party conference in October this year, we had a new crime policy paper, which picked up on this issue. It called for a transfer of powers from the Home Office to the Department of Health, saying that drug addiction is a health problem and should be seen as such. We should make sure that people are not sent to prison for personal possession; we should move towards decriminalisation. We propose having a royal commission to take an overall view of what we do and to keep an eye on what is happening with cannabis in the US and Uruguay. I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes that it is too early to be certain about the outcomes; we need to keep an eye open.

[Stephen Phillips]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the US, and earlier in his very powerful speech he mentioned the difficulty some young people have with being criminalised over the possession of drugs. Does he regard it as an oddity, as I do, that a person could be denied a visa to go to the United States, in some parts of which marijuana can be bought and smoked quite legally, just because they have a criminal conviction in this country for having used cannabis?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right; I agree completely with his point. We are blighting people’s lives for no good reason, and many do not think it is proportionate.

It is not just my party that has pushed for this change for a long time. Many other Members have called for reform, like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We have heard the clear view of The Sun in a very strong editorial just this morning, stressing that we cannot continue with the status quo. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said when he was Secretary of State:

“We have been engaged in a war against drugs for 30 years. We’re plainly losing it. We have not achieved very much progress.”

The former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller called for us to acknowledge the truth that

“much…of the vast expenditure on the so-called ‘War on Drugs’ has been fruitless.”

The noble Lord Lawson, with whom I disagree on many things, said:

“I have no doubt that the present policy is a disaster.”

Then there is the Prime Minister. When he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2002, along with the hon. Member for Newport West, he voted to recommend

“that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma”.

The Prime Minister used to be a reformer. When he ran for the Tory leadership, he said:

“Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades.”

All those voices are on side; we need to bring the Prime Minister back. Portugal has been a huge success. When we visited, we found that the new drugs policy was supported across the parties, and by the police as it helped them to deal with crime.

Let me make two last points before concluding. In 2016, the UN General Assembly will hold a special session on drugs in 2016, providing a key chance to change the global system in respect of drugs policy. This is key, and there are calls from around the world. Britain is leading the way in the calls for reform, but unfortunately not in an official capacity—it is the all-party parliamentary group on drugs policy reform that is seeking to co-ordinate Ministers around the world. The Government should support this change.

I echo the calls of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention to look again at marijuana as a medicine. The evidence is that it can be a very effective medical remedy, dealing with many diseases, including MS and glaucoma, and easing the side-effects of chemotherapy and HIV/AIDS treatment. This can help improve people’s lives, so clearly we should look at it as a medical intervention. This country has followed the wrong approach for 40 years. It has not worked, and it is time to change.

13:05

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

I shall take a somewhat different tack from other Members, but first I congratulate the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others on their contributions to the debate. I want to pick up on what was said by the Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee about legalised prescription drugs and how they relate to drug-related harms and their costs to society. I would argue that the cost of prescription drugs is massive, as are the related harms.

I would like to pay tribute to the late Jim Dobbin, with whom I worked closely on the all-party group on involuntary tranquilliser addiction. Jim set it up and worked on it year in, year out, because of his concerns, perhaps arising from his background, and because of the people he came into contact with. I pay particular tribute to Mick Behan, who worked out of his office. He had gone through involuntary tranquilliser addiction and worked hard with Jim to bring this to the notice of Government after Government.

Ironically, I was the Conservative candidate in Heywood and Middleton in 1990 when the Conservative Government were in power. Like all good candidates, I could not attack the Government, but I could attack the local Rochdale council, and who was a senior member of Rochdale council in 1990? Jim Dobbin. I then came to this place. My constituent John Perrott, who is the secretary of the all-party group, contacted Jim and got involved in work with him over the last four years, trying to bring to the notice not just of this House but of the system, the situation with tranquillisers and prescriptions.

The motion talks about costs. It is estimated that 1.5 million people have a long-term addiction to tranquillisers in this country. In 2012, 67.3 million prescriptions for tranquillisers were issued; in 2013, it went up to 70.2 million. Those are legal drugs that are being issued. There is a lot of evidence, particularly relating to the benzodiazepines—benzos—and the Z drugs, to demonstrate people’s addiction. As early as 1988, apparently, GPs were instructed that people should not be on these drugs for longer than four weeks. Yet 1.5 million people are addicted to them.

As a member of the all-party group, I used to visit various parts of the NHS with Jim to talk to doctors. We also spoke to the British Medical Association. There was a worry about their professionalism, as I remember one doctor saying, “If I refuse to give another prescription, I know full well that patient will go to another doctor and get the same prescription.” There is a great hole in the system. What the real cost is, I do not know. It must run to millions, if not billions, just for prescribing those drugs. Clearly, the profits for various companies are quite high.

The human cost is different again, when we think about the problems people face through no fault of their own. Who better to quote than the Prime Minister himself on this? Jim put a question to him in October last year, in response to which the Prime Minister said that

“these people are not drug addicts but they have become hooked on repeat prescriptions of tranquillisers.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 296.]

They went to their doctors in all good faith. They did not read the small print about possible side-effects and nobody spelled them out. Now we are left with of 1.5 million people who cannot get off these drugs, and there seems to be no place in the system for them to go. The only place they are sent is to a drug rehabilitation centre, but the majority of the people sent there have usually been on illegal drugs. I am not talking about a class difference, but there is a psychological difference between one and the other. What generally happens is that people who have suddenly realised that they are addicted to a substance that they took as a medicine stop going to such centres. One clinic that Jim and the all-party group supported, and which we hope will continue, is a voluntary clinic in Oldham, which followed the recommendations in a manual produced by Professor Heather Ashton about ways of getting people off benzo drugs and curing the addiction that they cause, but that is just one clinic. There was another in Liverpool, but its grant has gone.

My constituent John Perrott has—I hope—got himself off prescription drugs by means of that system. He sent a number of freedom of information requests around the country asking how many people had been taken off such drugs. As I said earlier, it has been estimated that 1.5 million people are addicted to them. A total of 180 people all over the country responded by saying that they had undergone some kind of rehabilitation to get them off prescription drugs.

As I have said, I do not know the total financial cost involved, but the mental and physical costs are clear to anyone who meets people who have ended up taking prescription drugs. Members can imagine the mental stress that they experience. They took those drugs because a doctor had told them that they would be fine. Therein may lie one of the problems that have been identified by Jim and others. The Earl of Sandwich has tried to take up the issue with the British Medical Association. Some doctors have said that, anecdotally, there is indeed an issue. However, they tend to feel that their professional judgment is being challenged, even if what is involved is a historical judgment. They worry about, for instance, possible litigation—and we are, of course, familiar with the American scene. But all that these people are crying out for is some recognition within the national health service.

We have had meetings with Health Minister after Health Minister, and they have all said, “It is fine—it is in the system.” However, drug companies are making millions from prescription drugs. Doctors say, “What can I do? If I tell people that there is a different system which does not involve my giving them tablets, they will not believe me”—and, as I said earlier, those people can easily go to another doctor and get the drugs from him. I understand that some of them can be obtained through the internet in any case. That is a very different scenario from the one that has featured in the debate so far, although it is clearly relevant to the overall issue of drug misuse.

Members have mentioned drugs in prisons. I have tried to obtain factual information from prisons, but have been given only anecdotal evidence. Prison doctors have told me that many prisoners know that the way to get hold of drugs is to say, “I am depressed”—and why would someone who has been sentenced to imprisonment not be depressed? The prisoner need only act out the symptoms, and the drugs will then be prescribed, entirely legally. The anecdotal evidence that I have received from the prisons themselves is “It keeps them quiet.” Other Members have mentioned that already.

[Stephen Phillips]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has spoken to prison governors, as I have. They have told me, as I am sure they have told him, that if prescription drugs, particularly tranquillisers, are taken out of prisons and no longer prescribed for prisoners—although they are not needed for the majority of prisoners—every custodial facility in the country will be on fire the following day.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

My hon. and learned Friend has made the point far better than I could. We are told that when we talk to people in the system, but there is no recognition of it. I find it amazing that even Members of Parliament cannot acquire information about the scale of prescriptions inside prisons, but, for some reason, that is not possible.

There is a whole series of questions to be asked. I congratulate the Members who initiated the debate, and I appreciate the points they have raised about illegal drugs. As an ex-teacher, I have seen the damage that drugs cause, on the streets and elsewhere. However, the issue of illegal drugs is part of a much wider issue relating to drugs in 21st-century society.

Let me end by paying another tribute to Jim Dobbin. He stood firm on this issue, and he worked hard on it. I last met Jim on, I think, the Thursday before the weekend he died. He had had a meeting with the Chairmen of the Health and Home Affairs Committees, during which he had been trying once again to find out more about an issue that affects all our constituents.

13:14

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw. He made a compelling speech, in which he rightly identified an immense problem that goes to the heart of the issue with which our drugs policy must deal.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate. I recall having a conversation with one of her co-signatories, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), when I was the criminal justice Minister responsible for the prison and probation services. The right hon. Gentleman, having at one time been the Minister responsible for drugs policy in the Home Office, is yet another convert to the more enlightened and intelligent policy that is proposed in the motion and implicitly recommended in the study report that the Government have just published.

On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman and I, as Minister, cooked up a plan for him to ask me a question so that we could begin to arrive at some estimate of the actual cost of our drugs policy to the criminal justice system. However, even as the Minister answering the question, I found it impossible to beat out of the Department information that would have enabled me to give a proper answer to the right hon. Gentleman, and eventually, having tried to do so several times, I gave up.

This is the central point that I want to make. Given the number of global leaders who have had responsibility for policy in this area—Kofi Annan, the former Presidents of Brazil, Switzerland, Colombia, Portugal, Mexico and Chile, George Papandreou; the list goes on and on, and includes, of course, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East—we ought to start drawing some conclusions. Members who know that they will not get the political kicking that our current Administration plainly feel they will get if they begin to open up an intelligent policy discussion of this issue should now collectively begin to push harder and harder. I share the optimism of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who for many decades has occasionally been a lone and vilified voice. His courage is an object lesson to us all.

[Ms Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the international context. Does he agree that it is significant that at least one American state—Colorado—has decriminalised marijuana? Is that not a sign that the tide is turning in regard to the efficacy of the war on drugs?

[Crispin Blunt]

I agree with the hon. Lady. There are examples all over the world of much more enlightened policies on drugs. Portugal and the Czech Republic have already been cited, and a number of American states have changed their policies on cannabis.

This is what I find modestly depressing. A bright young new Member of Parliament is elected in 2001, and is appointed to the Home Affairs Committee. He is then party to a report which invites another really good report from the Home Affairs Committee, whose members, as Members of Parliament, sit down and consider the issues properly. He is then party to a recommendation in 2002. He is holding to that position even in 2005, when he is competing for the Conservative party leadership. And here we are now. I found myself becoming one of his Ministers in 2010.

I shall now do what I should not do, and reveal a collective internal political discussion between Ministers who had some responsibility for justice and those from the Home Office. Of course, we did not dare to raise this issue. I pushed as hard as I could for us at least to get to where we are today, and I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on having pushed so hard to secure the report that has just been published. It is a big step forward for us to persuade the Government even to specify the international comparators. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was right to point out that the conclusions appear to be missing from the report. Joking apart, however, we all need to understand the political difficulty of carrying this debate with us. We have been frightened of the tabloid press, and we have seen what they did to the Liberal Democrat party as a result of some of its policies in this area.

The Home Affairs Select Committee’s recommendation in 2012 for a royal commission was absolutely right. That will get the matter out of the political space, so that the work on international comparators that has been put into the report can be considered. The royal commission will then be able to put forward the kind of difficult and far-reaching conclusions that I believe would be appropriate to take us in the direction of regulation and away from the utterly disastrous policy of prohibition.

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend talks about political courage. In the debate earlier this week on the Recall of MPs Bill, he made a brave speech on restoring the reputation of Parliament. One way of doing that would be for us to take the lead on this matter and tell the truth about the fact that the existing drugs policy has not worked. Should we not simply take on the tabloids—and damn the consequences—by putting in place a policy that works and that is best for the people of this country?

[Crispin Blunt]

I wholly agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), he has seen at first hand the horrifying consequences of the failure of our policy in the prison system. I visited 70-odd prisons during my time as prisons Minister, and the most depressing part of those visits was seeing the methadone queue. The prisoners queuing up to be prescribed their methadone were sallow, emaciated and plainly ill, and they had almost no prospect of getting better, given the treatment that they were getting.

We worked hard to start to join up the different parts of the criminal justice system in relation to addiction. We wanted to divert addicts from the criminal justice system and into the health system right at the beginning of the process, so that they could get proper treatment. One of the aims of the probation service reforms is to incentivise the service in regard to the successful rehabilitation of offenders. About 46% of acquisitive crime is drug related, as a result of people trying to feed their habit. If we are to rehabilitate such people successfully, we need to address their addiction. We ran eight pilots in the health service to try to identify the best ways of incentivising the health system to address addiction. All those measures are just baby steps, however, given the way in which the drugs industry has been criminalised. According to a Library note, Home Office figures show that the cost of the problem to the criminal justice system is about £13.9 billion.

Legalisation would create a risk of adverse health consequences. We might see an explosion in drug use, just as we have in the use of another drug, called alcohol, which is omnipresent in our society. Linked to that could be the kind of consequences that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood described, relating to tranquillisers. There could be a significant increase in health problems if we legalised and regulated the supply of drugs that are currently illegal. However, the lessons from Portugal suggest that that would not happen.

Getting the supply of drugs out of the hands of criminals would create the benefits that other hon. Members have mentioned. We would know what was in the drugs, that they were clean and that they had been obtained on the basis of sensible advice about their use. We would then have a society in which people took responsibility for their actions. If someone drove under the influence of drugs, for example, they would have to take the consequences, just as they would today if they drove under the influence of alcohol.

Given the scale of this issue, it is a pity that this debate has had to take place on a Back-Bench motion. The tide of opinion expressed by those who have taken part has so far gone entirely in one direction. I know from my experience as a Minister that, when we first looked at this matter, the Government spent about £900 million on trying to address addiction. The general assessment from Ministers at the time was that that was achieving absolutely nothing. It was felt that the rate at which people were getting better would probably have been exactly the same if that money had not been spent. We were making serious efforts, and the Government are to be commended for their efforts, particularly in the criminal justice system, to join up the management of addicted offenders, but this could all happen much faster and be much more effective if we grasped the root of the problem—namely, the consequences of prohibition.

In the end, drugs are drugs. Alcohol is a drug. We have heard about the example of prohibition in the United States, and of its war on drugs. Both those policies have been utter calamities, and they should present a lesson to the world. I sincerely hope that we in this House will be able to force Her Majesty’s Government to have the courage to address this serious issue in a way that could be of immense benefit to many of our citizens.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should like to suggest that speeches should last for no more than eight minutes. We are struggling with time, and quite a few people wish to speak in the next debate. There is more than one debate today, and we must think of the others who want to speak.

13:27

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on moving the motion today. As the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, everyone who has spoken so far has supported her views in one way or another. Like the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I have been dealing with this issue for a long time. When I spoke in a debate in the House nearly 30 years ago, I told the story of how my closest friend had gone to prison for possession of pot—cannabis—in the late ’60s. He was in prison for six months and he came out a heroin addict. Within six months of his coming out of prison, I went to his flat to call for him one day, only to find him dead on the floor. He had died of a heroin overdose. From that day on, I have done everything I can to fight the scourge of drugs and to bring to people’s attention not only how evil and destructive drugs are but how senseless the policies to combat them are.

The report on so-called legal highs is an interesting document, and the Government’s response to it is equally interesting, but they do not mention how we are going to solve the problem. It is proposed that we talk and think more about it, but we need to look at the overall picture of how we are going to help people by dealing with drugs in prisons and in the community generally.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) spoke eloquently about the late Jim Dobbin. Jim dealt with this issue not only in this country but abroad. I sat on committees with him in the Council of Europe, where he persistently got the issue on to the agenda, against the odds, and got it discussed. We owe Jim a great debt of gratitude for his courage in tackling this issue and for having the strength of character to keep fighting for it. We are doing him justice by keeping the debate going. I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Jim; we are sad that he is not here today.

What we do know about drugs is that we have spent billions of pounds and we have a policy that, by common agreement, has failed; it has taken us not a step forward. That is why I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention on having the courage to persevere and the commitment to see this report through on the comparisons that need to be examined seriously. The hon. Member for Reigate said that it contained few conclusions. There are no conclusions in it, but there are ideas of where we could go. The Members who have talked about a royal commission are going in the right direction; the sooner that can be done, the better.

We have to examine the situation in Portugal, which has been mentioned a lot. The report says clearly that not only has cannabis use there been reduced, but heroin use and cocaine use have been reduced dramatically. The way in which the initial possession has been treated as a health-related matter and not a criminal one is a major step in the right direction. If we can do no more in the life of this Parliament, before it ends next year, than get the royal commission set up and get the idea that we treat the possession of very small amounts of drugs, in some cases, as a health-related matter rather than a criminal one—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to support the excellent speeches I have been hearing. As a commanding officer in the Army, I had far too often to rid myself and the Army of outstanding young men and young woman because they had just touched a drug. Things have got better, but think what will happen once we deal with this as a medical and not a criminal situation. Of course if someone is high on drugs and leading a patrol, they have to be brought before the commanding officer. But if we are talking about just possession and just usage, our current approach is just too wrong.

[Mr Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is for ever bringing us his experience and the House should welcome that. Once again, he has touched on a very important point: careers are being thrown away because of the attitude of the Army, in his case, and of other organisations, which have taken draconian measures against people for the very minor crime of carrying or smoking cannabis. We have to look seriously at this issue. We owe it to the people outside this place because, as other Members have said, they are now ahead of Parliament on this matter. We should not be playing catch-up; we should want to find a way of leading on the issue. The report on comparisons is a step in the right direction, but I hope that the strength of the support in the Chamber today will carry forth that message to our colleagues, including the Prime Minister, who should be continuously reminded of his stance in 2002. He should be reminded of it daily, because when he talks about this issue he seems to forget what he might have said before.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Gentleman might like to know that today’s Guido Fawkes quote of the day is the one on drug laws that we have heard cited by a number of hon. Members.

[Mr Hancock]

I am delighted to hear that Guido Fawkes is talking about something other than me. We have an opportunity now and we squander it at our peril. We should look forward to this Minister getting the backing of his boss, the Home Secretary, and of the Prime Minister to make sure that we have the opportunity to do something positive, for once, on the issue of drugs. Let us not just continue to know that we have failed.

13:34

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

Finding myself simultaneously in agreement with the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is a first since I entered this place in 2010. When I came down to the Chamber this morning and I was thinking about the speech I was going to make and the notes I had made, I thought I was going to be committing political suicide. However, it is apparent from the contributions made by Members from across the House today that there is unanimity of view within the House: the current position, enshrined in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, can no longer prevail. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Newport West, who, as he rightly reminded the House, has been speaking, with one voice, on this issue for the past four decades. I have to tell him that the end is in sight and he is going to win in due course.

I wish to start my observations by setting out three startlingly simple propositions, with which this Minister would agree. The first is that the so-called “war on drugs” has been lost. My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt)—

[Crispin Blunt]

Honourable.

[Stephen Phillips]

Just honourable—that is a great shame.

My hon. Friend made reference to all the political leaders from across the world who have, in effect, made that point since they have left public office. He is no longer on the Front Bench and feels able, as I do, from the Back Benches to make the point that the war on drugs has been lost. That is a strong indication that we are getting policies completely wrong.

The second proposition is that existing drugs policy, focusing principally on criminalisation, is detrimental to health outcomes for individuals and damages society as a whole. The third proposition can now be made with confidence, given the report published by the Government this morning—I will come back to the issue of whether or not it contains any conclusions—but the report on comparative experience in other jurisdictions makes it clear, especially in relation to Portugal although the evidence from a number of other jurisdictions is the same, that decriminalisation not only leads to better outcomes for individuals but lessens the bill for the criminal justice system and provides greater benefits for society as a whole. One of those benefits, which I mentioned when I intervened on the hon. Member for Cambridge, is that it leads to respect for the criminal law.

One problem we have at the moment is that a large number of young people who are using psychoactive substances do not regard that as a crime. For them to be criminalised by the laws of this country leads to a general disrespect on their part for the criminal law and for this place. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made an important point in her earlier intervention: we are, or we are perceived by many of our constituents, to be behind the curve on this issue. We are perceived not to be in touch and not to be living in 2014. That is because successive Governments, of all colours, have been held back from doing the right thing, and I want to congratulate this Minister on having, for the first time, what my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate describes as an “intelligent debate”. This is the first time I have heard the House discuss this issue in an intelligent debate.

I intend to return to my three propositions, but it may be of assistance if I say that I come at this matter not only as an MP but as someone with experience of the criminal justice system, not really from practice but from having been a Crown court recorder. Any criminal justice professional in this country we speak to, be they a judge, a police officer or someone working in the probation service, will tell us the same thing: not only is our current approach to the use of illegal drugs in this country not the right one, but it is not based on evidence. Furthermore, it is detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole.

Nobody has been speaking for young people on this issue. They regard us in this House as dinosaurs when we consider the use of recreational drugs. They consider us to be living in a different age, one in which they are no longer living. They have no respect either for the criminal law or for this House, as a result. We have to move on. We have to recognise that times have changed. We must recognise the broad array of recreational psychoactive substances that are now available to young people and have an intelligent policy that does not just say, “You are a criminal if you use those substances.” Instead, we should say, “There are very significant risks to your health and very significant costs potentially to society. Although it is a matter for you whether you use those drugs, there will be consequences, but they will be consequences that we will principally deal with through the health system rather than through the criminal justice system.”

[Bob Stewart]

You are of course a criminal—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I am not a criminal.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are certainly not a criminal, but others may well be criminals if they take drugs or alcohol and put members of the public in danger as a consequence. They are criminals, but just taking a drug or drinking something does not make them criminals.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If we look at the difference between recreational drug usage and smoking, we will see that the harm is so much greater with smoking. For every 1,000 smokers who are admitted to hospital, 123 of them are suffering from health problems directly caused by smoking. If we look at 1,000 drug users who are admitted to hospital, only two of them are there because of the use of illegal drugs. We have at least one drug in this country—we could add alcohol to the list —that is far more dangerous than anything that anybody uses by way of recreational drugs or other illegal drugs. We must focus our attention on dealing with that as a health problem rather than as a criminal problem.

Let me come back to one of my opening propositions, which is that the war on drugs has been lost. A survey of the public earlier this year proves that that is not just my view. It is the view not just of the world leaders who used to hold office to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred, but of 84% of people in this country. It is true that only 39%—up from 27% in 2008—of those in the same survey believed in the widespread decriminalisation of illegal substances. The likely reason for that is the hangover from the debate that we have not been having in this country for the past four decades. We have not had a national debate on this issue, which is why people have not turned their minds to the question of whether some form of liberalisation, some different approach, taking into account the detrimental health effects, is the right way forward.

As the hon. Member for Newport West said, what is the point of this war on drugs? If it is to prevent people from taking substances that may harm them, plainly it is not working. According to the most recent crime survey for England and Wales, 2.7% of adults had taken class A drugs in 1996 compared with 2.6% now—statistically not significant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is no longer in her place, referred to the fact that there has been a seeming reduction in cannabis usage among young people. There are many reasons for that, one of which might be the tougher line that has been taken on cannabis by the Government, which has driven people into using so-called legal highs, on which the Minister has today published his report.

If we talked to criminal justice professionals—judges, the police and probation officers—we would learn that they do not support the war on drugs. It is a war that has been lost. If we acknowledged that fact and looked at the experience of Portugal and the other jurisdictions that have liberalised their drug regimes and taken away criminal penalties for small amounts of possession, we would free up enormous resources for the police. More importantly, we would free up enormous financial resources for the treatment of those who are addicted to these substances. Therefore, I venture to suggest that I am correct in my first proposition—I think the Minister will agree with me—that the war on drugs has been lost and that we must look very carefully at a new policy.

My second proposition was that the health outcomes of existing policy are at best poor. In fact, what also happens is that society is harmed by existing policy. We know that funding a drug habit is not a cheap business. It increases crime, particularly acquisitive crime. Drug dependency is therefore one of the drivers of crime in this country. Home Office figures for 2003-04 show that the annual cost of drug-related offending is £13.9 billion, £9.9 billion of which goes to the victims of crime. The other £4 billion of public money is being poured into the criminal justice system every year to deal with the issue. If that £4 billion were taken away from the criminal justice system and put into the health system to try to encourage better outcomes, we would not only get something better for those who use illegal substances and for society, but achieve a reduction in the total amount that has to be spent.

If existing policy is not deterring drug use and drug dependency, it is leading to crime, and that cannot be in anybody’s interests. A great deal of money is evidently being wasted, and it is money that, in these times of austerity, should not be wasted.

Let us turn now to the health of those who take illegal substances. By criminalising them, are we dealing adequately with them? Many young people who take drugs have no idea not only what they are taking, but what the effects might be. Those who are standing in a nightclub at 1o’clock in the morning having consumed, no doubt, a large amount of vodka are much more interested in getting the pill than they are in what is in the pill. What is in the pill is not always what people have been told. They might be told that it is MDMA when it is some other entactogen that has not been tested on humans. It may be rat poison, or it may even be harmless. Even if someone does know that the pill they are about to pop is ecstasy, there is no guarantee that they are aware of its potential effects. Although there are admirable websites such as Talk to Frank, not many young people necessarily go on them. Not everyone knows about the risks of these drugs or how to mitigate those risks. We know that from some of the tragic cases that we have seen in the past of users taking excessive amounts of drugs in clubs and elsewhere.

Let us consider those who inject their drugs, and look at the comparative treatment in other places, and the experience of the criminal justice system in Georgia. Georgia reduced its prison population from 24,000 to 10,000 by taking out of prison those who had been put there for possession of small amounts of drugs. The first result of that was a massive saving to the taxpayers who fund the Republic of Georgia. Much more importantly, there was an incredible improvement in the health of the prison population. Deaths in prison fell, and there was a significant reduction in the hepatitis C and HIV infection rates among the prison population. I am not sure whether that experience is included in the Minister’s report, but it is another strong indication that we are not doing this right and that if we focused on this as a health issue rather than as a criminal justice issue, we would serve our constituents and our society a great deal better.

Untrammelled use of drugs, especially recreational drugs, fuels disinhibition in those who take them, and that in itself leads to criminal behaviour. We know that that is a significant part of organised crime. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that 50% of all organised crime in the UK involves illegal drugs, mostly class A drugs. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has said that drugs are the most profitable sector of organised international crime, with a total turnover of $2 trillion in 2009.

My third proposition is that other countries are doing this much better, and that is why the Minister’s views and the report that he and his predecessors, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, have pushed for so hard, are so important. In the limited time available, I will deal only—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member referred to the limited time. Mr Deputy Speaker asked Members to confine their remarks to about eight minutes, so that everyone who wished to speak would be able to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman has now been speaking for fifteen and a half minutes. I would be grateful if he came to a conclusion.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be quick.

The experience in Portugal is absolutely clear: liberalisation of the regime for small amounts of possession is the way forward. I know that the Minister believes that, and while other hon. Members have pointed to the fact that there are no conclusions in the report, I venture to suggest that that is because they have looked only at the section on Portugal. If they go to page 51 of the report, they will see a section entitled “Observations”. I dread to think of the negotiation that went on in the Home Office to replace the word “Conclusions” with “Observations”. There are four bullet points there. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and anyone who is interested in the issue need to look at the experience of Portugal and those four bullet points, because they are essentially the conclusions of the Portuguese experience. The most important is the second one, which states:

“There is evidence from Portugal of improved health prospects for users, though these cannot be attributed to decriminalisation alone.”

Whether or not they cannot be attributed to decriminalisation alone, what is clear, from all the contributions in the debate, is that the existing regime, contained in the 1971 Act, is not working, and that we need a different approach. That approach, which the Minister is championing today and which is the subject matter of the debate, is a great thing, which I urge the House to think about deeply. I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

13:51

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on bringing forward the debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for making it possible. I was a Member of the House before that Committee came into existence and I cannot stress enough to Members who arrived in 2010 how much it has done in making this sort of debate possible—debates that perhaps neither Front-Bench team wanted to happen, but on issues that the public want debated.

I agree about the importance of having a thoroughgoing review on UK drugs policy. First, we must put this in its international context. Most of the leaders of some of the countries that have been at the heart of the international war on drugs would say now that it is not working. More people are taking drugs than before. The harms caused by drugs in some countries—in South America, the Caribbean, Afghanistan—have got worse, so there is an international context, in which people are recognising that an essentially punitive and criminalising approach to drugs is not working. As I said in an intervention, individual American states are moving towards decriminalisation, notably Colorado. Given that the decriminalisation in Colorado has boosted its tourism trade, I put it to the House that it will not be the only US state that goes down that road.

On the question of decriminalisation, I am by nature a libertarian, but I have always taken seriously the arguments of good friends and people with whom I work in Hackney. Their argument has always been that the skunk that young people smoke nowadays is a much more serious matter than the marijuana that some of us may have come across when we were young, and that it is one thing for a fully grown adult, such as a student, to smoke a spliff at a party at a weekend, but when pre-pubescent children smoke skunk, hour after hour when they are out of school, it must, of necessity, have an effect on their growth, educational development and so forth. There was also some concerning research about the links between marijuana and schizophrenia. Therefore, although I have had libertarian instincts since I was a student, as in inner-city MP I take seriously some of the arguments about the possible harm, even of smoking marijuana, and the signal that is sent by decriminalising it.

The fact remains, however, that if we are about anything in the House, we should be about evidence-based policy. This latest report, which the Government have belatedly released, shows that there does not appear to be evidence internationally that a more punitive, criminalised response brings down levels of consumption. On this issue, Members of Parliament have been unduly timid in the past. I can remember my own Home Secretary, a wonderful man, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who sacked his adviser because they told him something that he did not want to hear: that alcohol was a much more harmful drug than cannabis, not only physically but in terms of the social disorder, domestic violence and so on that it promotes. I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend’s response was not to say, “Gosh, isn’t that interesting. I must look into these facts,” but to sack the man concerned. Members of Parliament have been timid and have not taken an evidence-based approach. It may well be that Members are behind the opinion of our constituents—

[Crispin Blunt]

The hon. Lady should distinguish between Members of Parliament and Ministers, who have responsibility for the positions of their party. I think she will find that when Members of Parliament have looked at this properly, as the Home Affairs Committee has done repeatedly, they have been properly courageous.

[Ms Abbott]

I stand corrected on that. Certainly Ministers in the two major parties have been increasingly behind the opinion of their constituents, who, after all, could be eminently respectable figures but might just possibly in their youth have been in a room with someone who was smoking cannabis. They will know that young people growing up in London today cannot lead a life where they never come across, never see or never hear of people smoking cannabis. Our constituents may be more realistic about these issues than some Ministers have been able to be in the past and even now.

This has been a difficult issue for MPs and Ministers, but speaking as someone who represents a constituency that sees the very worst of drug harms, and on the basis of the evidence, past reports and today’s Home Office report, there is an unanswerable case for a review of UK drugs policy.

13:57

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Most of the things that I wanted to say have been said, so I will be brief. I just want to put on record my admiration for the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for having secured this debate, and for having raised the profile of the issue considerably in recent weeks and months. I also want to pay tribute to the Minister. It is true that the report out today has no clear, firm conclusions, but I have no doubt that it is pushing the discussion in a very healthy direction.

At the risk of being repetitive, I want to quote one aspect of the report, which is essential. It states:

“We did not in our fact-finding observe any obvious relationship between the toughness of a country’s enforcement against drug possession, and levels of drug use in that country.”

It goes on to cite recent evidence in the Czech Republic where tough laws coincide with relatively high use of cannabis, but then, dealing with Portugal, it states:

“Although levels of drug use rose between 2001 and 2007, use of most drugs has since fallen to below-2001 levels. It is clear that there has not been a lasting and significant increase in drug use in Portugal since 2001.”

If that is the case, and it certainly syncs with many other reports on the same issues and the same case studies, there is a serious question to answer. If the law is not acting as a disincentive to drugs use, and therefore, logically, drugs use will continue at more or less the same levels, with other factors knocking it up and down in various places, the question is whether we want that trade to belong to the criminals or to be under the umbrella and regulatory regime of some sort of government. For me, the answer is obvious.

There is also a practical issue. This is not an ideological or philosophical issue. According to the figures I have seen, in 2012 14% of people in jail were there for drug-related offences, and last year there were 87,871 convictions on the back of drug offences in this country. Obviously, not all of them ended up in jail, so the question is whether the present policy offers value for money. It comes with a multibillion pound price tag, and the cost goes well beyond the money. We have to ask ourselves who wins from this policy. My hunch, and the hunch of many Members who have spoken today, is that the laws in place have little effect other than to create a black market and therefore opportunities for the very worst people in society. We have laws in place that enrich the bad people while doing very little, if anything, to protect those whom we all have a common interest in protecting.

The present policy does not seem to me to offer great value for money. I know that there is a growing consensus outside this place on this matter, and this debate shows that there is a great consensus in this place, too, which I was not expecting to hear. The motion seems to be unarguable. We need an evidence-based policy system, and the first step is the review for which the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is calling. I very much support it, and I am thrilled that everyone else in the Chamber today has supported it.

14:00

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

Like every other Member here today, I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate. It has been a high-quality and wide-ranging debate. We have heard from two Select Committee Chairs. We have talked about prescription drugs, prisons and the international issues that we need to address.

I welcome the international comparators report which was published today. It received a lot of media hype overnight. I found it quite difficult to get a copy of the report until the Home Office provided a link to the Table Office at about 11 am, so I have not had a chance to digest the contents of the report fully. It has been a long time coming and it is a shame that we could not have had it a few days earlier so that we could have reflected on it in full.

I was rather bemused this morning to hear the Minister on Radio 4. I was not quite sure whether he was speaking as the Minister or as a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, as the Home Office later put out a contradictory statement. Perhaps he can clarify whether he is speaking on behalf of the Government today. I know that he has had difficulty in the past in speaking on behalf of the Government, and that he had to absent himself from the khat debate because he did not agree with the Government’s policy on khat.

The report on legal highs has also been published today alongside the international comparators report. Again, we welcome this, but it has been a long time coming. We on the Labour Benches called for the issue to be tackled much earlier; the growing market in legal highs has been allowed to flourish over the past few years. We are pleased to see the report. I pay tribute to Maryon Stewart and the Angelus Foundation, who have pushed the issue of legal highs and the need for legislation to deal with the problems that have developed.

Three key issues on legal highs emerge from the report, on which I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me. First, I hope there will be a comprehensive prevention and awareness campaign on legal highs. Secondly, we need a clear legislative framework to try to disrupt the supply of new psychoactive substances and stop headshops proliferating on our high streets. Thirdly—perhaps this should have been the starting point—we need a proper framework for assessing the scale and the danger of legal highs. We need to know when legal highs enter the UK and what dangers they pose. I hope the Minister may be able to assist with that today.

Of course, we all want to look at the evidence. In the Home Affairs Committee report, one of the first bullet points in the key facts section states:

“England and Wales has almost the lowest recorded level of drug use in the adult population since measurement began in 1996. Individuals reporting use of any drug in the last year fell significantly from 11.1% in 1996 to 8.9% in 2011-12. There was also a substantial fall in the use of cannabis from 9.5% in 1996 to 6.9% in 2011-12.”

Let us consider all the evidence and see what is happening.

I want to focus on treatment and all the comments that have been made today about the situation in Portugal, which is a key part of the international comparators report. Little has been made of the fact that the trends in Britain are very similar to what has happened in Portugal. It is important to remember that the changes in drug laws in Portugal were accompanied by significant investment in drug treatment, as we have had in the United Kingdom. When we examine drug harms and what has had an impact, it is not clear that a change in legislation is the driving force.

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to make sure that there is no risk of complacency creeping into the hon. Lady’s remarks. It is important to know that there were 2,000 drug-related deaths in England and Wales in 2013 and a 32% increase in heroin and morphine-related deaths. The number of deaths involving both legal and illegal drugs last year was at its highest level since 2001. There are different ways in which we can look at the figures, but the bottom line is that we need a review of the evidence. Will she support that?

[Diana Johnson]

I do not want to be considered complacent, but we need to get all the evidence on the table so that we can assess it. There is some merit in looking at what has happened regarding treatment in this country over the past 10 to 12 years. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction says that this country is well ahead of comparators. In 2010 60% of opioid users were in treatment. That compares with 12% in the Netherlands and 25% in Sweden, so I am not sure that I agree with the motion that the status quo is failing. Drug-related deaths among the under-30s have halved in a decade, and it has been calculated that getting people into drug treatment has prevented 4.9 million crimes being committed, saving the economy £960 million. This is evidence that we should all consider.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend has always been very thoughtful and careful in the way in which she has dealt with this issue. I agree that we need to get all the evidence out and examine it. Will members of the Opposition Front-Bench team commit to establishing a royal commission to look at the issue in detail so that we can base our policy on the evidence?

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee. What worries me about the idea that a royal commission will solve the problem for us is that there are issues that we need to tackle now—for example, legal highs. I am pleased, as I said at the outset, that we now have a plan from the Government for legislation in relation to legal highs. I am not discounting a royal commission, but we need to keep abreast of the issues that are developing now. We need to put in place ways of tackling legal highs and other issues.

It is important to remember that access to treatment is a key issue. In 2001 it took nine weeks to access treatment; in 2011 it took five days. We should be mindful that that was because of the investment in health services. Once people are in treatment, it is important to make sure that they complete it. In 2005-06, 35,000 people dropped out and only 11,000 completed treatment, whereas in 2011-12, 17,000 dropped out but 29,000 completed treatment. We should be aware of such evidence when we debate the drugs situation.

[Crispin Blunt]

I acknowledge that, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Lady is in a difficult position. She is calling for evidence. Whatever her comments on the early part of the motion, it concludes by calling

“on the Government to conduct an authoritative and independent cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and to publish the results of those studies within the next 12 months.”

It would be of immense help if the Opposition proposed such a motion on an Opposition day so that it could be voted on in the House. It would then carry greater authority and they would achieve exactly what she wants—to get the evidence out there.

[Diana Johnson]

I recognise that it is important for the House to have these debates, and it is good that the Backbench Business Committee granted this one, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is right and that the Government perhaps need to ensure that such issues are debated in Government time, with clear options for what they feel should be taken forward.

[Ms Abbott]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will give way one last time.

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for whom I have the utmost respect, but when she says that the status quo is not failing, I do not understand what world she is living in. It is failing young people in London. I think that her faith in the statistics on access to treatment is misplaced, because young people in the east end of London have great difficulty accessing treatment. The status quo is failing. Young people of all classes—not just the underclass—are continuing to suffer from drug harm because Members of this House are too frightened to look at the recent evidence.

[Diana Johnson]

I am not frightened to look at the evidence, but we need to look at what is happening today in the round; we must not cherry-pick. I have the same concerns as my hon. Friend about treatment now, because of the Government’s misguided reforms of the NHS. There is fragmentation in the treatment services across the country, which is something that many people are genuinely concerned about. [Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

I am going to carry on, because it is important that these issues are brought to the House’s attention. They might not be what everybody wants to hear, but I think they need to be recognised.

One of the key issues raised in tackling drugs policy in this country is the link between criminal justice and health. That resulted in the establishment of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which brought together the Home Office and the Department of Health, recognising the social harms that come from drug abuse and from people breaking the law by engaging in acquisitive crime as a result. There was a recognition that in order to tackle that we needed to get them into treatment. Huge investment was made, but it was a combined effort from both Departments. It is important to remember that that has been successful, because crime has been dropping. One of the reasons for that was the commitment to getting people into treatment so that they were not committing offences.

I want to mention France, because there drugs are seen as a health issue, not a criminal justice one. We know that France tends to invest less in treatment as a percentage of GDP—about one fifth of the investment that this country makes. Saying that it is just a health issue and thinking that that will solve the problem is not reflected in the facts.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Diana Johnson]

I am going to carry on, because I am conscious that time is short and the Minister has still to speak. [Interruption.] Well, I think it is important not just to have a one-sided debate in which we all say that the war on drugs has failed. The UKDPC has said that this country is a world leader in treatment, and I think we should recognise that as something very positive.

I am concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), about what is happening to the spend on treatment. Health and wellbeing boards do not need to have criminal justice representation. I think that is a problem, because it means separating health and criminal justice. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that concern.

Local authority budgets are under enormous pressure. Their public health budgets—the majority of the funding comes from the pooled drug and alcohol treatment moneys made available—are being raided. John Ashton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, has referred to this asset stripping of public health by local authorities. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.

I am also concerned about the role of police and crime commissioners, because they had responsibility for £120 million that went into treatment through drug and alcohol partnerships. They now have no incentive to spend the money in that way, and I am concerned that because of their lack of representation on health and wellbeing boards, a real problem is developing.

I want to make a few final points. On recovery, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt)—I know and respect him as a former Prisons Minister—talked about the complex needs of drug addicts, particularly those in prison. I think we need to have a much wider debate on what recovery means and how we support people recovering from drug addiction. That means how we support them into housing, how we shore up family relationships, which are very important, and how we secure employment opportunities. Those are all key issues that have to be part of a bigger debate on drugs.

I think that it is absolutely right that the police’s focus must be on disrupting the supply of drugs, disrupting organised crime and ensuring that addicts get treatment. It is very disappointing today to see that there has been a 60% drop in the amount of heroin seized by police over the past year, because that is another important part of tackling this problem.

On prosecuting for possession, the previous Labour Government introduced the penalty notices that were used for the possession of cannabis, and the Government have adopted them for khat, so it is not the case that someone in possession of drugs will get a custodial sentence. However, I think that the Liberal Democrats have now said that there should be no prison sentences at all for possession, so I want to check with the Minister whether that is the new Government policy. As I understand it, that is for repeat offenders, not one-off offenders.

I think that we have a lot of work to do on how we deal with criminal records. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) mentioned the fact that someone with a drugs conviction can be prevented from entering the Unites States. We need to look at what simple possession means for criminal records, especially for young people who might be found with a pill or an assortment of pills on one occasion. That will result in a caution, which will then result in later problems for employment and travel. That is another issue that we need to include in a wider debate.

I feel that it is important that we do not just have a one-sided debate. We need to look at what has worked in this country and around the world and base the debate on evidence. Some of the evidence that I have tried to present has in effect been queried and shouted down, and that is absolutely fine, but we need to have the debate. We cannot just say that it has all failed without recognising some of this country’s huge successes in drug treatment.

14:17

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I had felt that I was in a somewhat surreal debate, hearing all Members on both sides of the House agree about the need for reform and a different approach, all making coherent arguments about why the present arrangements need to change. But I woke from my dream when I heard from the shadow Minister, who appears to be the only Member of the House who wishes to defend the status quo absolutely.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said that he has waited 43 years for this report. I think that it is a very good report and that people can take from it what they want; they can look at the evidence and draw their conclusions from it. I think that the Home Office deserves credit for having the courage to issue it, and I hope that it will be the start of a debate.

My view, which is drawn not only from the report but from the public opinion polls that have been referred to, is that the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in. I think that the days of robotic, mindless rhetoric are over, because the facts and the evidence will no longer allow that. We now have to base what we do as a country on the facts and the evidence that we can accrue, and the issuing of this report is part of the attempt to do that.

I welcome the efforts of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and many other Members—many of them are here today—who over the years have made brave comments that have not always been welcomed by the Government of the day. I sense that there is a public mood now for a proper debate on these matters, and what could be wrong about a proper debate on a matter of such importance? It is much better than trying to shut down debate and pretend that everything is all right.

The coalition Government has made lots of progress over the past few years, which I am very pleased with, and there was progress in some regards under the previous Labour Government. However, it would be arrogant to say that we have everything right and that we can learn nothing from other countries. Of course we can learn from other countries, and it is right that we should seek to do so. The report seeks to highlight some of those lessons that can be learned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) referred to the Portuguese experience. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) drew attention to the fact—he quoted the report in full—that we have learned from Portugal for more than a decade that there is no correlation, at least in that country, between the level of penalty available and the extent of drug use. That is an important finding that we ought to bear in mind as we go forward.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who is not in his seat, made an interesting case for legalising cannabis. That is not Government policy, I have to tell him, but his case was coherent and others may or may not want to take it forward. The report’s stated position—its “observations” as the civil servants put it—is that we ought to keep a watching eye. Of course we should keep a watching eye on what is happening in the world. Does anyone argue that we should not?

These are experiments and it is far too early to say what the outcomes will be. They may be negative or positive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said. We do not yet know the consequences, but we should certainly watch with interest to see what they will be for public health and crime—and public finances, indeed, if we are to see a regulated market such as that in Colorado or Uruguay.

[Bob Stewart]

We have not touched much on the subject of crime. If we legalised drugs, the business would be less lucrative to the criminal world and that would stop some of the criminal gangs killing one another. We would have the bonus of fewer young people being killed on the streets of London.

[Norman Baker]

I shall take that as a comment in support of our right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. As I said, it is not Government policy to legalise drugs—nor, I think, is it the policy of any party in the House. However, my hon. Friend has made his point. Those sorts of discussions ought to be taking place and people ought to be able to argue the whys and wherefores in each case.

I turn to the question of new psychoactive substances, sometimes unhelpfully called “legal highs”. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion wanted more detail about what we were doing and was not entirely sure whether our policy was correct. I should say to her that in some ways it mirrors the approach taken in the international comparative study: it recommends that we get very tough on the suppliers of these dangerous substances, which cause immense harm to our constituents and, unfortunately, the deaths of young people. We are trying to rid our high streets of headshops, which are not an asset, but we do not seek to criminalise the users of the substances. That approach seems entirely appropriate—hammering down on those causing misery and helping those who use the substances.

[Stephen Phillips]

Does the Minister share my concern that a blanket ban on new psychoactive substances may result, first, in driving young people to take illegal drugs and, secondly, to continue to take so-called legal highs but without anyone being able to analyse what they are taking? Those products would no longer be marketed lawfully on the high street, petrol stations or anywhere else. Has the Department looked at that issue?

[Norman Baker]

On the latter point, I do not believe that what is sold now is accurately described anyway on the packet; the information is not available to young people now, although the substances are legal at present.

There is no simple answer that will solve all problems. Every potential solution has drawbacks as well as advantages. That is why I set up a review panel with the best brains in the country to look at the matters in great detail. They came to the unanimous conclusion about what should happen, and that is what we intend to take forward.

In fact, to pick up a point made by the Opposition spokesperson, we are already taking forward some of the panel’s recommendations. For example, Public Health England is launching a toolkit to support local treatment and prevention work in November 2014. It is piloting a new adverse event reporting system, akin to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency yellow card system for medicines, and this month it is launching its “Rise Above” campaign to build young people’s resilience to risky behaviours.

Action is already being taken as a result of the review. That will give comfort to many Members on both sides, including my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has always campaigned heavily on this issue on behalf of his constituents and others. The measures are right and should be welcomed across the country.

There is a distinction between how we are treating those who are peddling the substances and those who are using them, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) accurately said. I agree with the Opposition spokesperson that we should congratulate and thank Maryon Stewart and her organisation for the superb work they have done over the years to push the agenda and highlight the importance of prevention and education.

Key to the new psychoactive substances report is the fact that there will be prevention and awareness campaigning and a proper legal framework. No doubt we will take that forward as and when we have a full response from the public to what we have produced so far. We intend to take action; I give the hon. Lady an absolute assurance that we are not just publishing a paper.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Cambridge, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and the Opposition spokesman all referred to the need to ensure that we take account of health, and that is absolutely right. In my view, the issue is predominantly one of users’ health; it is a criminal issue for those who peddle the substances, but a health issue for those who end up taking them. We should frame our actions accordingly. The Government has done a great deal to help—through its recent heroin-assisted treatment programmes, for example.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee rightly referred to prescription medicines, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). I commissioned the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to look into the whole issue and the evidence gathering is under way. We recognise that the issue is serious. Others taking action include the Department of Health and Public Health England. The Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have published a consensus statement of good practice to prevent and treat addiction to medicines. We are taking action on that front as well.

The Opposition spokesman asked whether I was speaking on behalf of the Government. The fact that I am at this Dispatch Box perhaps gives a clue to the answer, as well as the fact that the document issued this morning bore the Home Office logo.

The issue of prescription drugs in prisons was also raised. The Justice Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is aware of the issue and considering it seriously, as, I am sure, is the prisons Minister. There is a serious issue in prisons; there is no point in denying that, and the Ministers are seeing what they can do to reduce dependence on prescription drugs in particular in prison.

I tell the House today that the Home Office is taking steps to make available Naloxone, which can prevent heroin overdoses. It is already available on prescription, but we are amending regulations to make it more widely available from next year. That will help people who come out of prison from over-using heroin and suddenly dying. That is a good public health measure, and it is going forward.

I hope I have covered most of the large number of points that have been raised. I genuinely think that this has been a really good debate; I know that Ministers generally say that, but it has been. It has been thoughtful, and Members have spoken from the heart and the head. I am grateful. The debate has now been opened; we can no longer rely on the stonewalling about drugs policy in this country that we have so often heard. There is a genuine debate to be had about the proper way forward and it has started today. The genie is out of the bottle, and it is not going back in.

14:28

[Caroline Lucas]

I simply want to thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this incredibly powerful debate. My only regret is that colleagues who perhaps not yet been persuaded of the arguments were not here to hear them; those arguments were made in such a compelling way that we could probably have brought many of those colleagues with us.

Several Members spoke about a feeling of optimism and a sense that the tide is turning. Notwithstanding the slightly less optimistic speech from Labour’s Front Bench spokesperson, I think that is absolutely right. I feel excited about the announcement today that Naloxone will be more widely available. That is incredibly positive and I thank the Minister for that, as well as for his response to the debate as a whole.

We recognise that public opinion on the issue is changing: a poll today showed that 71% of the public think that the war on drugs has failed. Our responsibility now is to make sure that politicians catch up with the public and recognise that we do not need to be afraid of the debate. If we look the evidence in the face, there is an awful lot that we can work with. We can put in place a much more effective drugs policy regime.

I started this debate by referring to Martha, whose 17th birthday it would have been today. Our laws let her down. By failing to review our drugs laws, we would be letting down future Marthas as well. I want to end by paying tribute to her extraordinarily brave, eloquent and tireless mother, Anne-Marie, and to all the other campaigners who are urging all of us here to review and reform our drugs laws. I hope very much that we will show we have listened to them by passing this motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that drug-related harms and the costs to society remain high; further notes that the independent UK Drugs Policy Commission highlighted the fact that Government is spending around £3 billion a year on policies that are often counterproductive; believes that an evidence-based approach is required in order for Parliament and the Government to pursue the most effective drugs policy in the future; welcomes the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its Ninth Report of 2012-13, HC 184, that the Government consider all the alternatives to the UK’s failing drug laws and learn from countries that have adopted a more evidence-based approach; notes that the Government has responded positively to this recommendation and is in the process of conducting an international comparators study to consider the effectiveness of national drug policies adopted by a range of countries; and calls on the Government to conduct an authoritative and independent cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and to publish the results of those studies within the next 12 months.

Sale of Park Homes

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

14:30

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to set up a review of the current fee of up to 10 per cent of the sale price of a park home payable to the park home site owner.

I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate. I am reminded of a previous Back-Bench debate on park homes that I led in 2010. That debate was attended by a very large number of Members, and it was an important step in achieving the passage of the Mobile Homes Act 2013, ably piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). Although our numbers are smaller today, I have received messages of support from several MPs who are unable to attend and speak for various very good reasons.

On many occasions over the years, the House has heard about how mobile park home owners have been exploited and badly treated by some site owners. It is a matter for some celebration that appalling practices can now be prevented through the implementation of the 2013 Act, and there is also the ability to make use of the residential property tribunals. However, there is still work to do to protect and ensure fairness for a fairly vulnerable population.

Today we are focusing on the 10% commission charge that is payable to the site owner on the sale of a park home site. Well over 30,000 park home residents from 975 parks have signed a petition against the up-to-10% commission on the sale price of their homes that is payable to the site owner.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady know of any other circumstances in which residents would have to pay this iniquitous charge of 10%, particularly when it often applies to an older and vulnerable group of people?

[Annette Brooke]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is difficult to think of anybody in a leasehold property who would have to pay such an additional charge. We need to look at what the money is used for, and I shall expand on that later.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

I have had representations from residents of Garston Park caravan park about their concern that 10% is indeed a very high figure. The Mobile Homes Act says that the charge on the sale of a home can be up to 10%. Does the right hon. Lady have any statistics—or perhaps the Minister can give them when he responds—on how many park home owners are charging 10% as opposed to a lower figure?

[Annette Brooke]

I think we will have to rely on the Minister being informed of that number. It has not been drawn to my attention that anybody charges less than the maximum, as is usually the case when a maximum is set.

In July, over 200 park home owners travelled to London to lobby their MPs. That is an amazing number given the distance and the age of many park home owners. It is important to note that their campaign has no funding whatsoever.

There are at least three elements to a site owner’s income, including the initial siting of the mobile home, the pitch fees, and the commission payment. On the siting of a new home, a site owner may purchase a new unit at a wholesale price and will incur further costs such as transportation and connection to services. However, it is reasonable to assume that the final selling price will exceed all costs incurred, and perhaps produce a significant return. As soon as the home is re-sold, the commission clicks in. In another scenario, a park home owner could replace their home, meaning that they will be charged for connections to services and landscaping, leading to more potential profit through re-charging—and again, when the unit is sold, the commission will click in.

On pitch fees, research by the National Association of Park Home Residents in November 2013 revealed that monthly pitch fees in 1,075 parks varied from £40 to £382, with an average of about £150 per month—quite a lot for people on fixed incomes. The 2013 Act will introduce some accountability, with an annual review of pitch fees, an opportunity for park home owners to challenge pitch fees on the basis of lack of maintenance or deterioration of the site, and a requirement for site owners to justify increases above the retail prices index. I hope that there will also be fully published audited accounts for these transactions.

On the commission itself, it is sometimes argued that this payment provides an important income stream to the site owner, and it is equally argued that the payment is essential for site improvements. A case is also put forward that it is not in the interests of park home owners, who are often on low incomes, to pay higher pitch fees out of current income, as would be required without this sales commission. In that sense, it might be seen as a deferred payment. I do not want to create unintended consequences, and hence I am not following the wording of the petition in asking that the commission be scrapped or reduced, but calling for a review. I think we need some facts.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I was at the rally in the summer and saw the strength of feeling about this issue, which we are right to bring to the Floor of the House. I completely concur with the right hon. Lady’s view that we must not legislate in haste and repent at leisure. She will be aware of the report from the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office back in 2002, which sounded a note of caution about abolishing the 10% charge, saying that pitch fees could rise to between 20% and 32% if we did that. Having a review is absolutely the right way to go, and I back her on that as a fellow officer of the all-party group on mobile homes. I also congratulate her on securing this debate.

[Annette Brooke]

I will refer to the 2002 report later.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

Another issue is whether site owners that are local authorities use the same policies. Any review should encompass local authorities that own parks and also have the 10% rule, because they certainly do not justify the fee they take for the pitch in terms of work carried out on sites.

[Annette Brooke]

I was not aware of that. We could demand transparency in that regard and find out how much of the commission fee was ploughed back into improvements on the site.

[Alok Sharma]

Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Annette Brooke]

I will, and then I must make some progress.

[Alok Sharma]

The right hon. Lady makes an interesting point about transparency. A lot of these park homes are owned by individuals and private companies, so there is not the level of transparency in the accounts that one would expect. Does she agree that as part of a review, we should ask park owners to be a little more open to demonstrate whether a reduction in the 10% charge would really hit their bottom line as much as they say?

[Annette Brooke]

I absolutely agree. Transparency is the key to finding the right answer for everybody in this scenario.

Obviously, a site owner must get a reasonable return on capital, and we want to encourage good site owners to remain in the industry. Park homes are an important part of the housing supply and should be encouraged. The Government acknowledge that the park homes sector plays an important role in the provision of low-cost housing for the elderly, and that it frees up under-occupied homes that are much needed as we face a housing crisis. However, with pitch fees, other overheads and the 10% commission, many residents worry that the costs of owning a park home are becoming unviable. The 10% commission charge is undoubtedly a matter of concern. Although it is now paid by the purchaser, it does reduce the sum of money paid to the seller.

Park operators have argued that they cannot remain in business without the 10% commission charge, yet our petitioners have pointed out that it would be foolish for a business to rely on an income that is unpredictable. It is difficult to predict how many new homes will be purchased, or used homes re-sold, in a year. Many residents reported feeling trapped in their homes and unable to sell. Owing to park rules, many sites are only for people of retirement age, and so the need to move into a nursing home or some other form of residential care is a real possibility. Having to give the park operator such a high percentage from the sale of their home reduces the amount the seller has to put towards their care.

Park home owners feel discriminated against and ask, “In what other leasehold property arrangement would a payment be made to the leaseholder on the sale of the property?” They cite examples of poorly maintained sites and no real improvements over time, and a perception of a luxury lifestyle for some site owners. Clearly, there are counter-examples of exemplary site owners, which I welcome, and I would like them to showcase their best practice. Transparency and published accounts would be helpful, to encourage all site owners to follow best practice.

Park home owners also point out that the value of the property is influenced by their contribution to the home’s value via its upkeep and maintenance, and argue, “Why should the site owner benefit from this contribution?” That is a good point.

[Steve Brine]

The Department put together an excellent document, “Park homes: know your rights”, following the legislation promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). In the past, site owners were part of the sale, because they had to approve it, but the 2013 Act has taken them out of that equation. Did the right hon. Lady take that into consideration when preparing her speech?

[Annette Brooke]

The park home owners say that that gives even less justification for the 10% commission, because the site owners are not involved any more.

I received an interesting representation from a park home owner, who wrote:

“I am not personally in favour of abolition of the sales commission. This would remove an opportunity to improve the sector. Linking a reduced sales commission to site owner performance will improve site maintenance, sustain home values and assist mobility.”

That is an interesting idea and perhaps we could work it through.

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

The residents of Brickhill Farm and Downlands park homes in my constituency would welcome the right hon. Lady’s general approach to the debate. Clearly, the 10% commission is having a behavioural effect on whether people are able to move and how they do so. Surely that should be the major point to consider when it comes to reviewing the effectiveness of any legislation or legislative change.

[Annette Brooke]

The 10% commission has wide-ranging impacts and they need to be considered. It is only now we are hearing about some of those impacts, as the voices of park home owners grow louder. If we had a review, their input would be vital.

Given that the commission is an unpredictable income stream depending on how many units are resold over a period of time, the question remains of whether it is a windfall gain or an essential source of money for site improvements. It is very difficult to answer that question without a review.

The Mobile Homes Act 1975 limited the commission to 15% and the Mobile Homes Act 1983 limited it to 10%. Is it not time to have a proper independent review to establish whether the current situation is justified or whether there is a case for a change? I am absolutely sure there is a case for more transparency.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

I was delighted to support my right hon. Friend’s application for this debate. She knows that there are a number of park homes in the north of my constituency. I thoroughly endorse all the points she is making. Put simply, she is sensibly and correctly asking for a review—a very modest request—and I have noticed the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), nodding in agreement with some of her remarks. She is approaching the issue in a sensible way and I hope the Minister, when he responds, will grant that review, which would be welcomed by all.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. Obviously, we are mutually aware of the issues that occur on the park home sites in Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset.

In 2012, the Communities and Local Government Committee concluded in favour of retaining the 10%, but did we have the review I am asking for? I do not think we did, because the sequence of events shows that the Committee relied heavily on the conclusions of a 2006 Government consultation published in 2007, which in turn relied on a report published in 2002. National associations for park home owners feel that the 2007 conclusions were heavily biased towards site owners and their trade bodies. I believe that, in total, there were only 1,250 responses to the consultation. I would be interested if the Minister could confirm that. If we had a consultation today, I think the response would be very different. I believe the responses came from only 230 parks, which is a limited number.

The park home associations did not accept the conclusion that the majority of park home owners wanted the commission to remain. Questions have also been raised with me about the independence of the 2002 report. It is only in recent years that individual park home owners have made their voices heard in very large numbers and accessed democratic processes via petitions and lobbying, led by my amazing constituent Sonia McColl and others, complementing the work of their excellent national associations, including the National Association of Park Home Residents and the Independent Park Home Advisory Service. The situation is different from 2006. Our park home constituents are aware of their rights and know how to make their voices heard, but we as MPs need to respond.

We need a review that looks at the viability of the industry and that listens both to site owners and to park home owners. I do not prejudge the outcome of any review. It might conclude that the situation is best left as it is, but with openness, fairness and transparency to ensure no bias either way, all parties will understand the conclusions.

Interestingly, I have looked at what has happened in the Welsh Assembly. Following a short debate in July 2014, it agreed to review the data and evidence contained in the 2002 publication “Economics of the Park Homes Industry” and the 2006-07 consultation. A review has been undertaken and the Assembly awaits the report. This month, the Minister for Communities and Tackling Poverty wrote in a letter:

“I feel a further review of the economics of the mobile homes business is necessary before a decision on amending the 10% commission rate can be considered. I do though feel the Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013 needs time to be embedded before a further review is conducted. It is, therefore, my intention to commission further research into the economics of the park home industry and the implication of amending the commission rate, in late spring 2015.”

I do not think we should be embarrassed about following the lead of one of the devolved nations.

I would like to see the review process started shortly in England, with the setting of the terms of reference, the processes for looking at the economics of the industry and the commissioning of a study. Detailed consideration of the retention or alteration of the 10% could be dovetailed a few months later into a review of relevant aspects of the Mobile Homes Act 2013.

I emphasise that I do not want unintended consequences that would increase burdens on vulnerable people on low incomes with increased pitch fees. I want a viable park home industry, but I also want to be sure the system is fair to park home owners. The review process should start sooner rather than later.

14:49

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on bringing this issue to the House’s attention once again. She has been a sterling campaigner on it for many years, and we should congratulate her on some of the successes and advances that have been made for our constituents in mobile homes, for whom the legislation has changed for the better. I want to place on the record my thanks to her.

This issue affects many Members, and I know that quite a few of them cannot be in the Chamber today. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who would have liked to speak but is in a Public Bill Committee upstairs.

Today, I am here to represent the residents of Carter Hall park in Haslingden and Harwood Bar park in Great Harwood in my constituency. Like residents in park homes across the country, those in my constituency are up in arms about the 10% point-of-sale fee that is still levied on static and mobile park homes sales. Much action has been taken in Parliament in the past few years that park home residents can be pleased about—the right hon. Lady highlighted the gains that have been made—but the 10% levy, which is a source of much anger and frustration, still has not been addressed.

The reason park home residents are frustrated, if not angered, is that no other form of property ownership is subject to this form of exit charge—set at an arbitrary level—at the point of sale. If a similar charge affected bungalow owners or those in terraced properties, I am sure that the House would seek measures to redress such a matter. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is not now in her place.

Legally, park homes are mobile homes, but in reality they are permanent and stationary. Moreover, such park homes are my constituents’ primary residencies, and regulations need to take account of the fact that they cannot choose simply to up sticks and move to a park home with a better contractual offer. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) made that point when he mentioned behavioural effects.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

My constituents’ feelings on this matter are very similar to those of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. What makes it worse is when a park home owner has not helped their investment in the park home to grow, because they then feel that they are being hit twice as hard.

[Graham Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I will move on to transparency, which is crucial, as is the contractual relationship between the park home owner and the residents, tenants or owners. It is important to have transparency so that people can see how their money has been allocated and how it has been spent, because part of what they pay, via the park home owner, is for maintenance. That is one of the missing elements in this debate.

Many of my constituents who live in park homes are elderly, and to lose 10% of the capital in their property is a huge financial blow at a point in their life where they may be looking to fund their retirement or even their care. Frankly, even if they do not intend to use the money for any particular purpose, it is their property, and in my view an exceptional 10% charge requires an exceptional justification.

Mobile home owners are clearly not people of significant means. Is there not a disconnect here? Is it not obvious, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that there is a gap between the interests of the owner of a site and those of the residents on it? The key point in the argument about the 10% levy is to ask why and for what purpose the money is raised, and how it is allocated. There is such a lack of transparency.

Everyone accepts that park home owners need a revenue stream to manage and service the park, which is the source of their livelihood. I accept the point made earlier that that may lead to a rise in site fees, but it is done as part of a transparent process. Such transparency otherwise seems to be lacking at the moment, which is one of the key issues.

There are key concerns about the transparency of the legally defined and arbitrarily set 10% fee. The residents in my constituency can see no evidence of how the money that is taken is used to improve the park in which they live. I suggest that the Government look again at the fee, and explore ways in which to inject transparency and confidence into the system.

If the Government regard the fee simply as an income stream that is guaranteed to the park owner regardless of any service provided, that will come as a great disappointment and even a source of anger to my constituents. In their view and mine, the revenue for park owners can be taken only in exchange for services provided. Residents need to be able to audit the fees, and have confidence that they are properly used.

I reiterate that I completely understand that park home owners need to have an income. However, sales are not constant and cannot be predicted year on year, so the argument that fees are vital is shaky at best. I know that my constituents simply regard the fees as greed. Indeed, they provide an incentive for park home owners to encourage a churn of residents, because they gain the 10% fee each and every time there is a transfer, and therefore become better off. The incentives in the process are a cause of deep concern. It is worrying that the single 10% fee is payable on each transfer of property, because an accumulation of transfers leads to greater wealth for the park home owner. It may also provide a disincentive for them to maintain the site, to look after owners on the site and to have longer tenancies or permanent residents.

As I mentioned in relation to the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, we have had huge success during this Parliament—I must say that that has been on a cross-party basis—in undoing some of the historical unfairness for park home residents, and it is vital that we continue in such a vein. Park home residents are well organised and have legitimate grievances. The issue of this 10% fee will not go away with well-meaning words and expressions of understanding from the Dispatch Box. They need to have confidence in the fact that steps are being taken to address the lack of transparency with regard to the fees.

My constituents simply want some confirmation that the issue will not be allowed to go away, but that the Government will continue to address and consider it, and that there will at some point be some redress or a change in legislation so that there is more transparency on the 10% anomaly and so that there are far clearer transactions between owners and residents, with people understanding what they are getting into and able to move from one site to another should they so choose, rather than being stuck in a particular site because they are bound by the 10% fee.

14:57

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for securing this debate. I am very much aware of the significant amount of work that she does for park home owners, for whom she is very much a champion. It is right for the House regularly to consider issues that the park home sector faces, and this debate provides us with such an opportunity.

The background to this debate is that my right hon. Friend’s constituent Sonia McColl—she runs the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign and is likewise a stalwart champion for park home owners—has delivered a petition of more than 31,000 signatures that calls for a debate on reviewing the 10% commission. I have considered the motion carefully. Although I welcome this debate and understand the reasons and sentiments behind the motion, I am not able to support it. I shall explain why briefly.

As has been said, I had the good fortune to pilot the Mobile Homes Act 2013 through the House. It was a privilege to do so and I pay tribute to the other Members who had campaigned for many years beforehand, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), as well as Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Best.

The 2013 Act addresses the appalling practices that have emerged in the sector in recent years, such as park home owners being bullied, intimidated and driven out of their homes by a minority of owners who are, in effect, gangsters. It also puts in place a framework under which park home sites can be better managed in a more transparent way.

In presenting the Bill, I was fortunate that a great deal of research had been done on the way the sector worked, identifying the problems that needed to be addressed and coming up with solutions. In many respects, the cornerstone on which the 2013 Act was built was the report on park homes by the Communities and Local Government Committee that was published in June 2012. The Committee considered the 10% commission on sales and heard evidence on the matter. It concluded that the right of site owners to receive up to 10% commission from the sale of park homes should remain. The same conclusion had been reached by the previous Government as a result of their 2006 consultation on park home commission rates.

I am mindful of the findings of the research carried out by Consumer Focus, which was published in its report, “Living the dream? An investigation into life on park home sites in England”, in October 2012. It concluded that the issues that needed to be addressed as a priority were improving local authority licensing, addressing the poor maintenance arrangements that prevail on some parks, introducing greater transparency in the process of paying utility bills and, above all else, tackling the problems of sale blocking and intimidation. Its research did not identify the 10% commission rate as a major problem that needed to be addressed as a matter of priority.

[Annette Brooke]

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on the Mobile Homes Act 2013, which addresses the very worst problems, but there is still a lot to be done. Does he not agree that we should look at the issues that concern park home owners in a balanced and unbiased way?

[Peter Aldous]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is an awful lot of work to be done in the sector. As I complete my remarks, she will see that I do not think that now is the right time to look at this one issue in isolation. The 2013 Act was one of the biggest changes in the sector in 30 years. I think that it needs to bed down and that we should then carry out a full review.

I have learned a great deal about the sector in the past two and a half years. One message that I have very much taken on board is the importance of achieving an equilibrium—a balance whereby park home owners can enjoy a high standard of living, a peaceful environment and quiet enjoyment, while responsible site owners can manage their parks efficiently and properly, and make a reasonable living and a return on their investment. In the feedback that I have received from responsible and good park home owners in my constituency, the concern has been expressed that if the 10% commission were removed, that equilibrium would be lost.

Given that there are fewer opportunities for new developments on sites and that the lifespan of homes is increasing, site owners are very reliant on pitch fees and sale commissions for their income. The majority of their income is derived from pitch fees—the figure of 70% has been mentioned to me—with sales commission providing much of the remainder. In many cases, the income from sales is the difference between profit and loss. I have seen figures to confirm that. Changing the 10% commission rate might therefore lead to some businesses becoming financially non-viable. That could result in cuts being made in the management of parks, with less money being spent on investment in infrastructure such as roadways, footpaths and communal areas. The result could be that parks take on a more run-down, down-at-heel appearance, which would have a negative knock-on effect on the value of the homes.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend speaks with authority, given his long-term commitment to this matter. However, I take issue with his point on the deterioration of standards. Is not the issue the bundling of costs? As a fellow Conservative, I would have thought that he would be concerned at the bundling of costs into an overall price, which means that the sale price and the 10% commission do not reflect the services that are being offered. The review will deliver greater transparency on what services are being offered, what the price of those services is and what competition might be introduced in respect of those services, so that there is not just an overall 10% figure that may or may not have a bearing on what the park owner is delivering.

[Peter Aldous]

In the fullness of time we need to consider the whole way the industry operates, but if we rush to take away this income stream, there is a danger that we may affect viability and cause problems on good parks.

Research undertaken under the previous Government in 2002 by Berkeley Hanover Consulting was considered by the Communities and Local Government Committee in 2012, and viewed as still being valid. It suggested that if the 10% commission was abolished, pitch fees would rise by 20% to 32%, which could impact on the attractiveness of the sector. In summary, there is a legitimate worry that changing the rate of commission could have unintended consequences. It could lead to higher pitch fees, which would in effect be robbing Peter to pay Paul. At worst, it could lead to a significant decline in the standard of parks, and their maintenance, state of repair and appearance.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would an increase in fees be fairer than a 10% cut when someone is trying to sell? It seems to me a fairer proposition.

[Peter Aldous]

I certainly take that on board.

The Mobile Homes Act was the biggest shake-up in the park homes sector for 30 years, and it will take a few years to settle down and be implemented fully, properly and effectively. The feedback I have received is that the legislation is providing local authorities with the means of working with park home owners to bring rogue site owners to account, ensure that parks are properly managed and run, and ultimately to drive those bad apples out of the sector.

There remains much work to be done to make the new sale process work better. On good, well-run sites, in the past home owners have relied on responsible site owners—the good apples—to do much of the work for them when it came to selling their homes. Now that site owners have been removed from the sale process there is a vacuum to fill, and I am afraid that the legal, conveyancing and estate agency professions are not coming forward quickly enough to fill that void. That problem needs to be addressed now.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentions estate agents. A 10% charge is taken by the site owner, but residents also pay estate agent fees, so that is one injustice. This measure is not being done in haste; as he said, this has been 30 years in the making. His Bill was important because it dealt with the most serious injustices, but it left out the 10% commission because it was so complicated and contentious. Why is the hon. Gentleman fighting against a review? We are asking to look at all aspects of the 10% commission, specifically in a review. Why is he so hesitant to have such a review and consider those aspects?

[Peter Aldous]

I am not opposed to a review, as I will say when summing up my remarks, but it is about the timing of that review and the way it takes place. I understand —I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed this when he sums up the debate—that the Department intends to carry out a comprehensive review of the sector in 2016, three years after the Mobile Homes Act received Royal Assent. One of the main tasks in that review will be to assess whether the fit and proper persons test should be applied to those seeking to manage parks, and I suggest that at the same time the whole sector should be reviewed, including the commission rate. I believe that is the right way to consider this matter, not on its own ahead of that comprehensive review.

Those are my findings on this situation, and as I said, we must seek to maintain an equilibrium and ensure that responsible site owners get a fair return. When introducing the Bill it was important to maintain understanding and consensus on all sides, but I fear that we are perhaps in danger of losing that consensus. That is the basis on which I hope we can proceed.

15:09

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

I add my thanks to those of other hon. Members to the many campaigners who have gone before us in the previous three decades—at least—who have sought justice for people who live on park home sites. I thank Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has done so much work on park homes over many years. The right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has led the charge for many years and I thank her for her work. We have got to know her heroic constituent Sonia McColl extremely well. She has become the park home owners’ agony aunt, answering e-mails and phone calls into the night, dealing with some very distressed individuals. She also set up the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. She has done magnificent work.

I thank my predecessor, Harry Barnes, who led the campaign in the 18 years he was in the House before me. Many of the people who live in North East Derbyshire’s park home sites would like to thank him. Most of all, I thank all the tireless campaigners in the eight park home sites in North East Derbyshire. Hundreds of people live in the park home sites in Riverdale, Millfield, Brookfield, Ponderosa, Sunningdale, Poplar Drive, Grasscroft and Bramley.

The 2011 census showed that something like 160,000 people lived in 84,000 park homes in about 2,000 UK sites. Those figures might be out of date, but more people and not fewer live in park homes. Most park home sites have a rule that people must be 50 or over to live there. Therefore, by their nature, they are places where people go when they have sold up in order to live off the money they have released from their homes. They are on low incomes, and they tend to be elderly and vulnerable. They live in isolated areas, because the sites are on the edges of communities. As the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said, many of them are very frightened.

[Stephen Barclay]

I concur with that. Is not a further problem that those people cannot possibly have an idea what the charge will be, because, by its very nature, it will be decided in future? They will not know what the sale price is, and therefore even an informed consumer cannot consent to it.

[Natascha Engel]

That is a key element, and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign group has made exactly that point. How can the charge be such a fundamental part of the necessary profits of site owners—it is necessary according to the site owners—if they cannot say when the profits will come? I will go into more detail on that.

Hon. Members are enormously grateful to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for promoting as a private Member’s Bill what became the Mobile Homes Act 2013. It has and will make a huge difference. The Act is bedding down. He is very lucky to have so many good apples as site owners in his constituency. All the bad ones have come to mine. As a result of the Act and other legislation, the intimidation has stepped up a level. As campaigning MPs, we need to ensure the involvement of the local authorities.

I do not recognise the picture the hon. Gentleman paints. I understand the importance of consensus, and as hon. Members have said, we do not want to deny park home site owners a good living. They have a very good living at the moment. All we are fighting for is justice. The 10% commission is a fundamental injustice in the sector and I will go into detail to explain why.

The 10% commission is a flat fee. It was initially intended as a maximum commission, but it is a flat fee of 10% no matter the value of the home, how long somebody has lived there, and what improvements people have made to their homes. The homes in my constituency are absolutely beautiful. There is a reason why the report mentioned by the hon. Member for Waveney is called “Living the Dream”. It is absolutely idyllic living on a park home site with like-minded people. It is quiet and beautiful and on the edge of beautiful countryside. It should be absolute heaven in retirement, but improvements are paid for and done at great cost to the people who live there, not to the site owners themselves.

The biggest reason the site owners give, as the hon. Member for Waveney said, is profit margin. With the profit margin, 70% comes from pitch fees and 30%, as the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, is from income that is not secured—residents do not know when it is coming. They are told that it is an essential revenue stream for the maintenance of park home sites. I can hear almost every single one of the 600 residents in North East Derbyshire sighing and saying, “If only”. On the sites we go around, there are loose cables and tree roots growing into water pipes that are not being repaired. Massive costs are incurred where there are leakages. As we all know, utility bills are collected on the whole of the site—there is one bundled-up price. Therefore, if the site owner does nothing about the burst pipes, it is the residents who pay.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there are numerous examples—certainly on pitches in my constituency and probably on those in the constituencies of other hon. Members—of site landlords simply refusing to act? They are challenged; something is pointed out to them but they simply do nothing.

[Natascha Engel]

Yes, and I go back to the point about the type of residents. There are some brilliant campaigners, but all of them are very elderly. What can they do if a site owner is never to be seen, especially when there is work to be done and something has to happen? They are either left to do it themselves—a lot of people are just not able to do it themselves—or they have to live with the fact that there are lots of dangerous things lying around and things are just not sorted out.

We hope that enforcement on the part of the local authority can now happen, but it is very difficult to do in practice if a park home site owner is reluctant to do anything because it costs them money and bites into their profits.

[Peter Aldous]

The image that the hon. Lady is portraying is the view I have of the one bad park home site in my constituency. Does she not agree that the Mobile Homes Act 2013 provides the means to address the problem?

[Natascha Engel]

We hope it will address the problem. One of the really big issues previously was that there was nobody to enforce the licence unless it was a matter for the police, in which case it was a criminal matter and out of everybody’s hands anyway. We hope it will be a very important change, but certainly in North East Derbyshire the legislation needs to settle down. The 10% flat rate seems enormously unfair when site owners are saying it is absolutely essential for the maintenance of the park and no work is ever done. On the contrary, residents are doing all the work and having to pay out for everything.

[Bob Stewart]

This is the first I have learned of the problem. I have listened to the debate and I am absolutely appalled. The 10% fee sounds like daylight robbery. It is fair to charge a rent for a pitch; it is grossly unfair to charge 10% for nothing. It is robbery.

[Natascha Engel]

Absolutely; in fact Rick and Bill, from one of the park home sites in North East Derbyshire, made a T-shirt with “Daylight Robbery” on it, which is selling like hot cakes. It is a funny point, but about something serious. This is daylight robbery from people who cannot afford it. That is the really awful aspect. It is exactly as the hon. Gentleman describes: it feels such a terrible injustice that people pay out and get absolutely nothing in return.

I have mentioned this before in a debate, but it is also interesting to remember that when park home sites first started, the type of people who owned them had a social conscience. Part of the reason why utilities are bought in bulk now is that the site owners used to do that and then pass on the savings to the residents. Now the absolute reverse is true, certainly in many of the sites in my constituency, where although utilities are bought in bulk, everything is completely un-transparent. No one can see what they have used or how much money is being charged, and the site owners tend to add a little administration fee, on top of the pitch fees, on which a lot of them are making a disgusting amount of profit. That really should not be allowed, and it is also something that should be taken into the calculations.

As we have said before, what we are asking for is very reasonable: a review of just one thing that was not included in the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Waveney. That would also be an opportunity for those who disagree with us to make their case. The most interesting thing in the speech by the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was the fact that the evidence relied on, certainly in the consultation for the private Member’s Bill and under the Labour Government, is from previous research that has never really been updated. As the sector is now much more organised, the people taking part in consultations are ever increasing in number and, thanks to Sonia McColl, have a proper focal point. I therefore urge the Minister and the shadow Minister—the Minister in what I hope will be an incoming Labour Government—to commit to having a review, simply in recognition of the fact that there is a problem. It is not a problem for the site owners, but it is for those who live on the sites.

Transparency and clarity are enormously important. Under the last Labour Government, a regulation was proposed to make any changes clearer and to require site owners to make it clear to those buying park homes that they would face not only pitch fees and utilities bills but the 10% charge at the end their time. That should have been a requirement, but unfortunately it was never implemented. It is all there in the Department; perhaps that regulation needs to be brushed down, so that we can have a look at it before the general election.

As I have said, we do not want to deny site owners a living; it is just that, certainly from anecdotal evidence and the kinds of cars they drive, we can make quite a safe assumption that the profits they are making, on the backs of vulnerable people, are extremely high. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to have another look at this extortionate commission of 10%. The right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned this, but it would also be a good idea for the review to look at minimum maintenance standards on site, so that if people are paying 10%, the site owner has to commit in return to maintenance up to a certain standard and within a certain timeframe. That would go some way to addressing the injustice that people feel. We could look at that in the review, and there would then at least be a proper justification for the site owners to take that 10%. At the moment, it is daylight robbery; people are getting nothing in return for it.

It was interesting to hear about park home sites that were council-owned. Bramley Park site in my constituency used to be council-owned and is now in private ownership. It does not charge the minimum 10%. The same owner charges the 10% at another park site in the constituency, but he seems to manage perfectly well without charging it on the former council-owned site. Perhaps we could look further into that in the review and assess the profit consequences to a park home site owner if the 10% commission were to be abolished.

Some people think of these mobile homes as caravans, but they are not mobile; they are entirely static. As mentioned earlier, there is one set of rules for people who live in bricks-and-mortar homes, and a different set of rules for these static caravans. Yet these are people’s homes; it is where they live. It is where many of them will live for the rest of their lives. Some have quite a high value. Some of these homes go for between £150,000 and £200,000—often reflecting how beautiful they are. We are not talking about peanuts.

[Annette Brooke]

When the commission first began to be charged, we were talking about home prices of between £10,000 and £20,000, yet now we are up into the realms of £250,000 for a new park home, and even trading prices can be at least £150,000. These are very large sums of money, yet we do not know exactly what the commission is used for.

[Natascha Engel]

That is an important intervention. One of my constituents has written:

“Under the new rules a Site owner has no dealings with the sale of properties, not even to notify the provider of essential services…Water, electricity etc. We do that. All he has to do is get his secretary to delete one name and enter another. A huge commission for a two minute job.”

I think that rather makes the hon. Lady’s point.

The review should look at another problem about which residents have written to me. On one park, an elderly resident had gone into a care home before she sold her home. We need to note that none of my constituents were happy for me to use their names. They wanted to remain anonymous because they are absolutely terrified of the consequences that might follow from their site owners. I would like the Minister to listen to this letter, as it reveals a really serious problem. It states:

“In respect of the new Mobile Homes Act 2013 particularly on the sale of homes, it appears that problems are occurring on properties that are for sale and empty due to either the home owners moving to another property or into a nursing home. Although the ground rent is continuing to be paid, our site owner is claiming that if the property is empty then the home owner is breaking the law within the implied term which states that the home must be kept in a sound state of repair and must be the sole residence of the occupier. It appears that our site owner then sends a solicitors letter to that effect to the seller and also sends out surveyors to check the exterior of the property who obviously find many major defaults and state the property is not worth anything! This then means that any prospective purchaser cannot purchase the property because it is in the hands of the site owners solicitors pending court action!”

That was not the first time I had heard about that problem, which relates to the wider context of the 10% commission issue. We really must have a proper and careful look at this. One positive consequence of setting up an independent review is that many such examples, which I have become aware of only recently, would be brought to our attention. Many of these real injustices, which simply would not be tolerated for homes of bricks and mortar, could be highlighted. That would be most useful.

I hope that when the Minister and the shadow Minister wind up the debate, they will commit to setting up a review and will ensure that the review is independent. We would very much like to help out with the review, but what is most important is for it to be independent of not just site owners, but any other pressure groups. We must ensure that its findings are regarded by everyone as fair and justified. It is high time that we updated what is, by now, quite ancient research.

Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Waveney, I think that time is of the essence. One of the tragic aspects of this issue is that many people have died since I started the campaign: they have died waiting. Many of those who are alive are elderly, and time is clearly of the essence for them. This is an injustice that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

It is unfortunate that many of the changes for which we have been lobbying have got lost between general elections. I should dearly love to see a review set up now, with a definite timeline and involving cross-Bench consensus, so that we can ensure that something happens, and happens very quickly. I should be very grateful if the Front Benchers would be specific about whether there will be a review, how independent such a review will be, and, above all, what the timeline will be.

15:31

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), and, indeed, all who have spoken so far. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on instigating the debate, and on making such a powerful case. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on all the tremendous work that he has done in piloting his Bill through the House.

I will not repeat the arguments that have been advanced so powerfully this afternoon. I will, however, quote briefly from an e-mail that I received from a constituent who lives in Lodgefield park in my constituency. He writes:

“Home owners are having great difficulty in selling partly because of the 10% which in effect makes their homes over-priced on the market. This means that owners are trapped in their homes and unable to move unless they drop the price to a level where they are unable to purchase anywhere else.”

He also makes the interesting point that if home owners are selling to fund care, the state, if they come to rely on it, will lose quite a large sum through the 10% commission. That point may be tangential, but I think that the Government should bear it in mind none the less, given that in such cases there will ultimately be a cost to the Treasury.

The only other point that I want to make concerns transparency, to which many Members have referred. There are three elements of the income that comes to park home site owners. First, there is the income to cover their current costs, the year-by-year costs of maintaining the park. Secondly, there is the income to cover capital improvements to the site. That is very important, not least to those who live in park homes, because they want to see improvements to their properties which will increase their value. Finally, quite rightly, there is a surplus or profit element.

Every Member who has spoken has acknowledged that site owners have a right to see a return on their investment, but I, like others, would like to see more transparency. We are told that the commission is needed because, without it, pitch fees would rise substantially—by 20% to 30%, or even more. I am not sure that I entirely understand that. The corollary is that, in a year in which a number of homes have been sold in a park, the site owner would be expected to say “We can reduce pitch fees this year”, or “We will not apply for an increase, because we have received so much income from the 10% commission.” I have yet to hear of such instances. There may have been some, but they have not been brought to my attention.

I agree with what was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). We need to see an unbundling—a transparency —in regard to both revenue and capital costs. Those who live in park homes would then be able to see clearly what had been spent on maintenance and on capital improvements, and what remained as a surplus. I am sure they would welcome that information being made clearly visible, because these matters have an impact on their quality of life and on the capital value of their home.

Such transparency would take a lot of the heat out of the debate. For example, people would be able to see that there might be cases in which a fee of 10% was reasonable in a particular year, just as a fee of 0% might be appropriate at other times. There could also be a strong case for transferring most of the cost to annual fees, or for introducing a mixture of a capital fee and a revenue fee. This is the opportune time for the review that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole has proposed, and I hope that those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches will concur with that view, as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) requested, because many people living in those homes are coming to the end of their lives and a solution needs to be found. Transparency is what we need.

15:36

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I apologise for coming late to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had to deal with an urgent constituency matter, and I want to put on record my apologies to you and to the previous Deputy Speaker.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has been a doughty campaigner on this issue for many years and I congratulate her on securing this debate. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for introducing his private Member’s Bill. It took 30 years to enact legislation on this matter, and I should like to express my tremendous appreciation to him for enabling that to happen during his first term in the House. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) as I agree with all he said about transparency. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) passionately evoked the issues.

I have mobile home owners in my constituency. I supported them as best I could as a candidate before I was elected, and it was then that I came across their astonishing lack of power over their own homes. It was absolutely incredible. As the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire said, these homes are not caravans; some of them are absolutely amazing. They are meticulously kept, with beautiful carpets, for example. They are beautiful homes.

Significantly, the vast majority of the mobile home owners are elderly. Having discovered the lack of power that they had, I then discovered the astonishing influence and sheer maliciousness of some park home landlords. I simply could not believe it. As a naive young—or perhaps middle-aged—candidate, I went to the council, but I was told, “Stephen, what can we do? We don’t have the power to do much about this.” That is how I first learned about the process. I have been a close colleague of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for many years, and under her guidance I have since learned a lot more about the iniquities of the system.

On behalf of my constituents, I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for his private Member’s Bill. I hear his suggestion that we allow it to bed down for a few years, and that we should perhaps step back and take a little heat out of the process so that we can see how it is working—I have tremendous respect for my hon. Friend, with whom I have worked in a number of cross-party contexts—but I disagree with him on that point. I will tell him why.

If I were to sell my house tomorrow, I would be charged between 1% and 2%. Estate agents’ rates are very competitive at the moment. The last time I sold a house, it was valued at about £230,000, so a fee of 2% would have been a couple of thousand pounds. If I had been selling a mobile home, however, it would have cost me £25,000—£2,300 in estate agent fees, plus an extra £23,000. I would have been paying that to the landlord or leasholder, and that is mind-blowing. That would not be so bad if I had tarmac that was always swept and looked after, lights that were kept on and repaired whenever they were broken, bushes and shrubbery that were cut and a landlord who treated me and all the other park home owners with respect. I would still resent it, but I would probably manage my resentment. However, if I was treated with the absolute contempt with which, as I have discovered over the years, some, but not all, park home leaseholder owners treat their tenants or mobile home owners, it would go beyond what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) described as “daylight robbery”; it is theft. If the wider world knew that this was common practice and estate agents, who are not popular at the best of times for charging 2%, were getting 10% on top of that, it would just be unacceptable. Why has it gone on for 30 years? It is because this is a small sector; it is a niche. Sadly, before the involvement of the doughty Sonia from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and the other amazing people who brought this practice to our attention and to that of the public, it went on for many years. Not only were people treated very badly, but they were losing a fortune. It is disgraceful.

So where are we at? The Welsh recognise that the review needs to happen sooner rather than later, so they are going through the process right now. What I say to both Front Benchers is that this is a cross-party issue; there is no problem here. I pay tribute to some of my colleagues who have been pushing this issue for years. We all now understand that the current situation is wrong and it is time that we did something about it. The review should be independent, involving actuarial specialists and estate agents and so on. People who really understand this sector should, independently, have an input to the review and come up with a number of recommendations. They may well say, “Actually, we should keep a commission because of the uniqueness of park homes. Let’s make it 5%, but for that you get X,Y and Z. You get the lawns cut and you are looked after. It is a service rate, like the one that people pay in an apartment block. If you don’t meet that service rate, there are penalties.” This is not difficult, it can be done and there is a cross-party consensus. The first step is to have the review, with robust independent lay people on it, plus specialists and representatives from each of the areas. It will then come up with recommendations, and I am as certain as I can ever be that once the recommendations are made, be it under the coalition Government or whoever the Government are after the general election, there will be a consensus in the House and they will be passed quickly. I hope to receive that commitment from both Front Benchers at the end of this debate.

15:43

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I begin, Madam Deputy Speaker, by apologising to you, to the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and to the House for not being present for most of the debate? I have been in Committee considering the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and have just hot-footed it from Committee Room 10. I want to pay tribute to the Minister there, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has allowed me to come here, and to the Labour Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is holding the fort at the moment. However, my constituents come first when I am dealing with matters in this place, which is why I wanted to contribute in this debate.

I am pleased that the Backbench Business Committee considered this matter to be worthy of debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for her work and her strong interest in this matter and to the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for pursuing her case so professionally and with such tenacity.

I wish to make representations on behalf of my constituents who live in Elmtree Park, which is close to the coast at Seaton Carew in my constituency. Comprising 100 park homes, the site caters for people without children who are over the age of 50, and it has a vibrant community life. Indeed, it is a great community, and the people who live on that park are its greatest assets. It is always a pleasure for me to visit the residents, eat their scones, drink their coffee and discuss matters relating to the ownership of their homes.

It is clear, from speaking to the residents of Elmtree Park over many years and from my time as a Department for Communities and Local Government Minister with responsibility for park homes, that the current business model is broken, as it provides far too much power to site owners at the expense of park home owners. Although there are many good site owners who invest for the long term and who want a good and mutually beneficial relationship with residents, far too often the sector sees malpractice, a lack of investment, poor if any maintenance and unscrupulous and often criminal site owners who are content to make a fast buck and fleece residents. Time and again I hear of unfair fees that are opaque and subject to no challenge, poor maintenance of the land, and site owners either making it difficult for home owners to sell their homes or hounding people out so that they can consolidate pitches. Either way, the owners often take a whopping profit when park homes are sold.

During my time as Minister, I was particularly keen to reform the licensing regime to ensure that we incentivised the good park home site owners and punished the bad, to the point of driving them from the industry. I wanted to push the concept of fit and proper persons for site owners so that the sector encouraged responsible owners, good behaviour and good conduct, and to ensure that this responsibility was reinforced through effective regulation. I also wanted to make the fee regime transparent, so that park home owners knew precisely what they were paying for. I also wanted them to have the opportunity to negotiate and discuss the fee with the site owner before it was finalised.

It is the fee regime that most concerns my constituents on Elmtree Park. A balance needs to be struck between allowing site owners to raise enough revenue to maintain the site, provide amenities and produce a reasonable return while, at the same time, protecting residents from unfair costs. As a Minister and a constituency MP, I have always been struck by the lack of consensus on whether the 10% commission on sales should be reduced. Some people see their park homes as homes for life and so would rather see a reduced annual pitch fee than a reduction in the commission on sales; conversely, others would like to ensure that the commission was reduced or even eliminated, maximising their income on any sale.

Despite the lack of consensus, it is clear that too much power lies in the hands of the site owner, at the expense of the park home resident. The current regime allows for site owners to benefit twice from any sale, which is very wrong. It allows them to coerce a park home owner, through fear and intimidation, to sell their home to them for a reduced price—the so-called site blocking. The site owner collects 10% on that sale. He or she can then bundle up sites or sell the home, often at a huge profit. All the upside and none of the risk is with the site owner and that cannot be fair.

[Peter Aldous]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech with which I wholeheartedly agree. However, does the Mobile Home Act 2013 not provide local authorities and park home owners with the ability to stop those problems?

[Mr Wright]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but my main point is to do with that 10% commission on sales as part of the overall fee regime. With his permission, I will elaborate on that, as it is an incredibly important matter. Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here at the start of the debate when this issue must have been touched on time and again. I am keen to push the idea that the fee regime should be as transparent as possible.

I want to preserve the unique character of park homes that attracts older owners to want to live there. In many respects, therefore, there is possibly an argument that the site owner should be able to vet potential buyers. However, it cannot be right that the home owner is unable to sell his or her asset, in most cases the biggest asset they have, without first seeking approval from the site owner and then paying 10% for the privilege of doing so. I cannot see how that is fair at all.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is almost feudal to expect park home owners to go through that process?

[Mr Wright]

I came into the debate during the hon. Gentleman’s excellent contribution, and I agree with him. I was going to touch on that. He used the word “feudal”; I have the word “archaic”. It is so old-fashioned in the 21st century, and not appropriate these days. We need to ensure that the balance of risk and reward is pushed more firmly towards home owners than site owners. That is why the Government should look again at the 10% commission on sales, as part of the wider review of all costs and fees relating to park homes. I really liked what the hon. Gentleman was saying as I came into the Chamber, which was about ensuring that any commission was linked to proper clarity on maintenance and improvement of homes. At the moment, we do not have that relationship, so the costs of maintaining and improving sites and how that will be paid for are not clearly stated and understood. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right, and I would like to see that.

There are long-standing problems within the sector, and, as I have said, far too often the balance of power tilts away from the home owner. When I was in office, I was keen, on behalf of the residents of Elmtree and others throughout the country, to ensure that they received fairness as part of a well-functioning park homes sector. That 10% commission now needs to be driven down as much as possible, if not eliminated. Greater transparency on fees needs to be considered as part of that wider regime. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and wish to advance those aims on behalf of park home owners everywhere.

15:52

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and other Members who have secured today’s debate. The right hon. Lady deserves particular recognition for her long-standing and determined campaign on behalf of 165,000 park home owners and residents to secure better protection for them. It is a cause that has attracted a number of contributions from Members who have park homes in their constituencies.

The basic principle is that park home owners deserve just as much protection as other home owners. That is why the progress that has been made during the past decade or so, including, I freely acknowledge, under this Government, to provide greater protection for park home owners has been so important. The last Labour Government established a park homes working group in 1998, and its recommendations led to not all but many of the shortcomings being tackled in the Housing Act 2004. Further proposals to amend the law were set out in 2005 and implemented later that year, and in May 2009 further consultation was published on options for improving the management of park home sites.

Significant progress has been made in this Parliament, and I pay tribute, as have many other hon. Members, to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for his Mobile Homes Act, which was put on the statute book in 2013. As he would acknowledge, it drew on the work of the Communities and Local Government Committee and it had cross-party support. It is worth reminding ourselves that the reason for that was the injustices that were so clearly rife in the sector, as we have heard today, and that still continue in some places to this day. It reformed the licensing regime that applied to park home sites, it removed the ability of unscrupulous operators to try to block lawful sales by residents of their homes, and it ensured that pitch fee increases were transparent. It also included provision for the Government, should they so wish, to introduce a fit and proper person test through legislation. As I think we have heard, the reputable park home site owners, apart from anybody else, deserve not to have their reputation undermined or damaged by the rogues—the word “gangsters” was used—who sometimes act shamefully towards their residents. We have made real progress.

Today we have focused on the question of the 10% commission payable to the site owner on sale of a park home. I want to explore the arguments that have been made today, and in the previous studies, on that question. On the one hand, it is forcefully argued by mobile home owners that the site owner does nothing, in effect, to earn the commission, so they do not see why they should be paid it. As we have heard—this point was made most forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel)—when residents have spent their own money on improving their home, and therefore its value, it is particularly galling to see 10% of the increased value paid to someone else for work that they have not funded.

On the other hand, the argument has been made—we have to acknowledge it—that the income from commission is part of the income that site owners depend on, along with pitch fees and the sale of new mobile homes to new owners coming to the site, and that it is therefore important for making their business viable. Were the rate of commission to drop or disappear—the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was perfectly frank in acknowledging this argument—would there need to be an increase in pitch fees to compensate?

There have been other changes that I strongly welcome. For example, commission can no longer be applied to the gift of a mobile home to someone else. The previous Labour Government looked at this matter, as we have heard. Reference has been made to the research carried out by Berkeley Hanover Consulting, which concluded at the time—I acknowledge that it was 12 year ago, as the right hon. Lady argued clearly and forcefully—that pitch fees would rise significantly if the commission paid to site owners was reduced. It argued that pitch fees could increase by about a third as a result.

Indeed, when the Communities and Local Government Committee looked at that recently, it pointed to the case of a residents association that was offered a reduction in commission in return for an increase in pitch fees. It was reported to the Committee that one in 100 of the residents so approached agreed to such a move. The Committee’s report also pointed to the previous Government’s consultation in 2006. We have to acknowledge that it would be in the interests of some residents to move in the direction of the commission disappearing, but others would prefer the status quo.

The difference is this: those who favoured a reduction in, or abolition of, the commission rate accepted that it might well result in a higher pitch fee. The residents who intended to sell their home at some point in the future thought, “Well, that’s okay.” However, the residents for whom that will be their home for the rest of their lives were, understandably, much more anxious about an increase in their pitch fee, because they could be paying it for a long time.

With people’s budgets already stretched, and as many of the people who live in park homes are on low incomes, as we have heard, I think that that is a reasonable consideration to take into account. In that sense, would we want to take a step that might result in people facing fees that they would find difficult to pay? There is genuinely a balance to be struck, and we have to consider that.

One of the ways we could help to answer that question—there has been strong consensus on this point—is by having greater transparency. It is self-evident. The right hon. Lady made that point at the start of the debate, and it has also been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy).

Let us look at the example of leaseholders. Where service charges are levied for works that the freeholder of the building undertakes, whether cutting the grass, cleaning or external painting, they have a right under legislation—the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, I think—to see a cost summary and then the underlying documents. However, park homes were not included in that legislation, which was introduced some years ago, and I simply do not think that can be right. Why should park home owners not be able to see where the money they have paid goes and what it is being spent on? That is a matter of principle if a fee is being paid to someone else, who may or may not be providing the services in return. It would also help us answer the question raised in the argument made by site owners—that if they do not have commission income, they will not be able to continue operating sites as viable entities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) made a point about the business model, and that is important. If someone is not entirely sure how many homes are going to be sold, how can they hope to run their business, which is dependent on something they do not control? With pitch fees, of course, there is control. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) described one possible option: that of lowering fees. Others have argued for their removal.

There seems to be a consensus across the House in favour of a review. As the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole made clear, a review would not say, “We’ve reached a decision about the sensible thing to do.” There is a very strong feeling on the part of home owners that the 10% commission is unfair. We could ask them whether they would be able to cope with higher pitch fees if the commission disappeared; people will have to express a view. I think it would be sensible to have a review. As I understand it, the only issue across the House is its timing. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that.

I conclude by congratulating the right hon. Lady on bringing this debate to the House. I hope that the Government will respond sympathetically to her points and those of other Members.

16:01

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on securing this debate on an important issue. As others have said, she has worked hard for many years for residents in park homes across the country. I represent Great Yarmouth, where there are a large number of park home owners, so I appreciate the importance of the issue. I was delighted that one of my first appearances at the Dispatch Box as a Minister back in October 2012 was to respond to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), during the debate on his Mobile Homes Bill. Both Members have campaigned tirelessly for better protection for park home owners. My right hon. Friend was instrumental in securing the passage of my hon. Friend’s Bill, which is now the Mobile Homes Act 2013.

Members feel strongly about this issue. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) has whizzed his way here from his Bill Committee, where other Committee members will be missing him as we speak. I do not intend to keep him for too long. He joins a number of Members who have campaigned hard for years—not just me and the others here today, but my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who has also been in a Bill Committee; I have spoken to him about the issue a number of times. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) has lobbied me regularly, although he is unable to speak today from his position just behind me in the Chamber. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have campaigned on behalf of residents in Epping Forest. This has also been a strong issue for other Members across the House who want to make sure that residents are protected and can feel confident about their rights and ability to look after their homes, for themselves and their families.

The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) also contributed to the debate, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney, for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and the hon. Members for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and for Hartlepool. They have shown the strength of feeling in favour of making sure that our residents are well protected and can have confidence about their rights in respect of their homes.

The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire raised a particular resident’s issue about a site owner’s claim that having a property empty is breaking the rules and that the property could be put in the hands of the site owner’s solicitor and sold. If that is what the resident is being told, it is simply not correct—the law does allow for a property to be empty. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me or contact me outside, I will happily take the matter forward and give her a formal response.

The 2013 Act was the biggest shake-up in park home legislation in 30 years. The Government were pleased to support it during its passage through both Houses. It marks our commitment to ensuring that park home owners are protected and that their rights are fully respected. One of those is the right to sell a park home without undue interference from the site operator. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, there was significant evidence that the role of the site operator in approving the purchaser was being abused by the unscrupulous to block the sale. This is as much about protecting the integrity and reputation of good site owners as about weeding out the scourge of the bad, rogue landlords whom none of us want to be viable. Park owners in my constituency, such as Blue Sky, work hard to provide a good environment for people to live in. The Act has removed the opportunity for abuse by abolishing the right of a site operator to approve the person to whom a home could be sold.

The new system for buying and selling has been in place since last May. As Members have outlined, it is much fairer than the old system in which the site operator could demand to interview, or otherwise vet, a prospective purchaser—often with a view to putting off a purchase so that the site operator could acquire the home from the seller at a fraction of its true market value. That was simply not acceptable. While the practice of sale blocking was not endemic, it was acknowledged to be widespread. The new procedure reduces the opportunity for abuse. As we have heard, there are still, sadly, some unscrupulous operators who continue to do what they can to interfere with people’s homes and their rights over them.

It is fair to say that, as has been reported to me, some site operators have experience of sellers not complying with the new system and not following the correct procedures when selling their homes. This may not be in any way deliberate—I would imagine that in most cases it is not—but if a sale goes through that does not comply with the law, there could be grave consequences for the seller and the purchaser. This is why we have constantly urged, and continue to urge, that parties to the sale of a park home obtain professional advice, as almost everyone buying or selling any home would do, and as we would encourage them to do.

On the payment of commission, although the 2013 Act did not, for reasons I shall explain, change the maximum amount payable, it did make significant changes to how it is paid to the site operator. Members will be aware of that from the debates that took place at the time. The maximum amount of commission did not change, and it remains at 10%. I can understand why owners object to commission on the sale of a home. They feel aggrieved that they have to give up 10% of the sale price, which is paid to the site owner, who they feel does nothing in exchange. Sometimes they see this charge as a kind of estate agency fee at a point when the site owner is no longer involved in the sales process. However unfair home owners feel the payment of commission is, the fact that it is payable should not come as a surprise. It is an implied term of the pitch agreement, and they should have been aware that it was payable on a sale when they purchased the home.

The maximum rate of commission is 10%, as it has been since the Conservative Government reduced it from 15% in 1983. As we have heard, site operators do not have to charge the maximum rate. The right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole made the fair point that it would be interesting to find out more about whether anybody is charging less than the maximum amount. If Members will bear with me, I will return to that in relation to their comments about a review.

Commission is a legitimate income stream for park home businesses, and there is no evidence that its payment leads to profiteering. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and others said, that was the finding of the independent report on the economics of the industry commissioned by the previous Government in 2002. The other income strands come from selling homes and pitch fees. Income from selling homes is obviously limited because it requires the availability of pitches—land in anyone’s ownership will always be restricted to a certain amount—or site redevelopment.

Changes in pitch fees are regulated and linked to inflation, as are certain other costs that the operator incurs in running the site. Therefore, if the maximum rate of commission were to be reduced from 10%, or abolished altogether, there would need to be compensatory relief through pitch fees. The independent report noted that if the commission were decreased or abolished outright, operators would look to increase prices elsewhere. In particular, it found that abolition would result in pitch fee rises of between 20% and 32%.

As the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, has said, property owners have mixed feelings about what the impact would be. It has been argued today that the report is flawed and that the views of home owners were not fully considered. It has even been suggested elsewhere—I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole referred to this—that the report was not independent.

[Annette Brooke]

It has indeed been suggested to me that site owners and those involved in the business had quite an input into the report, albeit not in the writing-up stage. I do not know how true that is, but it contributes all the more to the case for having a review sooner rather than later. A lot of things have changed since 2002.

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is nice when we all agree from time to time.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central also said that things have moved on in 12 years. The report is 12 years old and I agree that it had a small sample base, but it was based on a range of park home sites—from the very small to the very large. Although it was published in 2002, there is no great evidence at present to suggest that the economic structures of the industry have changed significantly in the intervening years. There was some involvement from homeowners—there had to be, given the nature of the study in preparing the report. However, the report was on the economics of the sector; it was not, to be fair to the previous Government, a consultation.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Does the Minister not agree that one of the things that has changed is the value of those homes? Given that the commission is a percentage of the value, which has probably outstripped inflation considerably in many parts of the country, that is a substantial change, even since 2002.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, although I would point out that the proportion changes for both parties and the percentage remains the same.

Home owners also complained that the report’s findings were not borne out by the facts and, as hon. Members have said, that the 10% commission is not necessarily invested in the management and maintenance of the site, but is simply treated as profit. I have no doubt that there will be examples where that is the case. We are aware that some sites are poorly managed and poorly maintained and that operators do not invest in them. However, that does not mean that that is universally the case. The majority of site operators need that commission to maintain their sites.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I concur completely that it is not always the case, but does the Minister agree that, whether or not the operators maintain their sites, they still receive the 10%?

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The fact that some do not bother to maintain their sites should be dealt with. It is for the local authority to tackle the issue through the new licensing enforcement tools introduced by the Mobile Homes Act 2013, which was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and came into force just a few months ago, in April 2014.

The answer to poorly maintained and managed sites that suffer from a lack of investment in their infrastructure is to use that new law and report poor conditions to the local authority, which under the licensing powers can require the site owner to spend money on improving conditions.

[Natascha Engel]

The Minister says that a majority of sites are well managed. What evidence does he have that it is not a minority that are well managed and a majority that are mismanaged?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, what I said was that the majority of site operators need the commission to maintain their sites. On the question of whether they are poorly managed and maintained, I said that some operators are not investing in them. That is exactly what the 2013 Act—the rules and laws that came into force on 1 April 2014—deals with.

The independent report carefully evaluated the economic structure of the industry and concluded that commission was an important income strand that could not be abolished or reduced without relief. Nevertheless, the previous Government consulted on what the appropriate maximum rate should be. Although home owners favoured a reduction in or abolition of the commission rate, very few thought it should be linked, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central has outlined, to a reduction or an increase in their pitch fees. Understandably, and as the right hon. Gentleman also said, those who generally saw their park home as their home for life wanted to retain the existing system, while other site owners wanted no change at all. The then Government’s preferred option at that time was to have a 7.5% commission on existing agreements and to abolish it on new ones, but to have unregulated pitch fee increases, for which consultees showed little support. The consultation was therefore inconclusive. It looked at options in relation to the payment but, as we all now know, it was not about reducing or abolishing commission. The then Government therefore decided that no case had been made to change the status quo.

In the spring of 2012, the issue of commission was looked at again by the Communities and Local Government Committee. It held an inquiry into the sector, and published its finding in June 2012. Its report, which identified widespread malpractice in the sector, led the Government to support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. We agreed with the Select Committee’s finding that there should be no change to commission. That was our view in 2012, and it remains our view today, but I will return to the issue of the review in a moment.

[Annette Brooke]

I am afraid that I may be anticipating the Minister, but does he think that the Select Committee conducted a thorough review? I praise it for its whole report on park homes, but I was not aware that a large part of its work related to the 10% commission.

[Brandon Lewis]

It is not for me to question the decisions of the Select Committee or its Chair about how they go forward, but I will turn in a few moments to how what they looked at can be taken forward. I now want to make a bit of progress with my speech.

As other Members have rightly said, the justice campaign and its founder, Sonia McColl, are to be congratulated on their fantastic, sterling work in raising issues about problems with the park home sector and on the need for reform. As I have explained, we believe that commission is a legitimate income strand. It does not result in profiteering—at the moment, the evidence does not back up such a claim—and site owners who run a legitimate business within the law are entitled, like any such business, to make a reasonable profit. If the commission were changed, compensatory relief would be needed. There are good site owners who run professional businesses within the law. I am sure that all Members want them, for the benefit of their residents and of the economy, to thrive and grow. We therefore do not want to put in place measures that could affect their continuing viability.

I appreciate that that may be unwelcome to some home owners who have campaigned for a reduction in the commission or its abolition. We should not, however, lose sight of the substantial reforms that were introduced by the 2013 Act. It targets unscrupulous and criminal operators who think that the law does not apply to them: it does, it should and it must. Apart from introducing new provisions to prevent the blocking of sales and a new scheme for selling homes, the Act requires site operators to use a statutory form, and to set out what is included in any proposed new pitch fee and how that fee has been calculated. We are therefore starting to see the transparency that we want to exist more widely. The Act has banned certain types of rules that can be used to block sales on sites. It also introduced important provisions to reform local authority site licensing, which came into force on 1 April this year. These hugely important changes for the first time give local authorities powers to take enforcement action against rogues who refuse to maintain their sites.

I want to reassure the House that the Government recognise that more work needs to be done to change the culture of the sector and to crack down on the rogues operating within it who give everybody in the sector a bad name and affect the lives of residents unfortunate to live in such areas. To achieve that, we will continue to work with partners to raise standards generally, and to remove criminality from this sector.

In particular, I am determined to stamp out the continuing bad practices in the industry, such as unlawful sale blocking, or local authorities and other agencies not using their powers effectively to protect home owners. That is why I have asked a ministerial colleague to bring together representatives from across the sector to identify evidence of poor practice where it exists, and investigate how best to raise standards further and tackle abuse. That group will significantly help to shape the review of the Mobile Homes Act.

I agree with hon. Members, not least my right hon. Friend, that the review should have an independent chair. The review will be undertaken in 2017, which will give us a couple of years to see the impact of the new laws before we review how they are working. However, I would be very happy for that group, under its own auspices, to consider a wider review of the issues that have been raised today. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take up the opportunity to be part of the group. I know that the Under-Secretary will welcome Members who want to contribute to and be part of it.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I might be giving the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) responsibilities that she does not want, but should she not chair the group?

[Brandon Lewis]

I hope that the right hon. Lady will take an active part in the group, but I do not want to put too many dates in her diary, unlike the hon. Member for Hartlepool. I have asked for an Under-Secretary of State to chair the group so that it is taken forward as a Government working group. I hope that other colleagues across the House who have concerns about this matter will participate in that work to improve the sector. We will also involve national resident groups and industry trade bodies, as well as representatives of local authorities and other agencies that are involved in the park homes sector.

I reiterate that we are committed to improving the sector so that those who run professional, honest businesses can prosper without unfair competition from the rogues, and so that home owners, some of whom are vulnerable, can be assured that their rights are respected, that their health and safety is protected and that they will not suffer bullying and harassment.

16:21

[Annette Brooke]

It is a pleasure to have you presiding over our debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, knowing that you have an interest in this subject.

I thank all Members for their excellent contributions. I thank the park home owners who have contacted us in various ways. I also take on board the representations that I have received from good site owners, who have contacted me either directly or indirectly, about how well their sites are managed. I would like them to come to the new group to showcase their good practice.

I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure that park home owners will feel very reassured that their interests are being looked at. We have to continue looking for the right balance, but I think that everybody here has acknowledged that site owners need a return on their capital and that, equally, park home owners need justice.

I liked the words from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) when he said that bundling everything together was preventing the free market from working. I am not always a great free marketeer, but he made a strong argument. We have vulnerable constituents who are not being given perfect information on which they can make rational choices. It is therefore important to think about the model.

In conclusion, I hope that we have taken another little step forward, but we need to deal with this issue sooner rather than later. We must bear it in mind that there is a general election coming up. I am afraid that each time we have had a general election, we have taken a couple of steps backwards in our attempts to achieve more for park home owners. I hope that we really have made progress today and I look forward to participating in future work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to set up a review of the current fee of up to 10 per cent of the sale price of a park home payable to the park home site owner.

General Practices (Coventry)

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jenny Willott.)

16:23

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

This debate might not be as lively as the debate on post offices in May, when we also had the pleasure and privilege to have you presiding over us, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, we have an important topic to debate and I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is ready to respond, because we have one or two questions for him. I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) would like to take part and he has my willing acquiescence. I do not intend to detain the Minister or the House for long this evening, but I wish to put to him a point that was made to me in a precise and graphic way by the local medical committee for Coventry—it is also for Rugby, but in this debate I am principally speaking as the Member of Parliament for Coventry North West.

The situation has been described as a “crisis”. A letter, almost a cri de coeur, went out from the local medical committee on behalf of GPs, issued in the name of the chairman of Coventry local medical committee, Dr Peter Whidborne. He said that,

“due to increasing workload, and decreasing resources, general practice has now reached crisis point.”

That is what triggered my interest in this matter and my concern as the local MP, and it was reinforced by many anecdotal and personal encounters with residents in my constituency—I am sure my hon. Friend will confirm the same thing for Coventry South—who said that they cannot get appointments with GPs. Patients are finding the situation increasingly frustrating, and an assiduous campaign has been waged by certain elements of the popular press against the 2004 GPs contract and all the weaknesses that we know it contained, yet there is also the reality of the pressures under which GPs operate.

The public’s general impression is that the previous Government granted GPs all too easy a deal but that GPs have not responded in kind, and that despite the general improvement in their terms and conditions, rather than improving services they have in fact responded with a decrease in the level of service provided. Many would agree that there has been such a decrease, but they would disagree that that is due entirely, or even mainly, to the 2004 contract changes. In fact, it is a reflection of the general unease throughout the whole health care service. Such unease is reflected in, among other things, reliable figures produced by the Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions, which I will refer to in a moment. On access to GPs, as with other areas of the health service such as A and E departments in the acute hospitals or services for elderly people who suffer from a chronic condition, people are finding it increasingly difficult to get the level of care required, and the resources needed to provide it, because of the stretching of health service provision at a time when resources are relatively stagnant.

Let me cite some figures that I think graphically illustrate the situation we are facing. In Coventry, the number of people emigrating from other countries is increasing and the number of GPs is decreasing—the figure from the Deloitte study is something like a 2.5% decrease in the total number of GPs over the last five years, at a time of increasing demands on them in terms of visits and patients to be seen. Let us remember that 90% of all patients are first seen in a primary practice by GPs before they access any other services offered by the NHS, including the general hospital, and that figure is increasing every year. For the first time in the NHS’s history, however, the number of GPs is shrinking. We must deal with that basic fact at a time when numbers should be increasing.

I am pleased that the Labour party has pledged—this is not a party political point—to increase the number of GPs by 8,000, and to raise the money for that and for wider £2.5 billion spending on the health service through a mansion tax and a tax on tobacco companies. I am sure that in so far as such measures have success—I have some experience of that with the windfall tax that some Members may remember—the latter idea will find widespread support throughout the House. If at the end of the day the mansion tax does not prove successful for whatever reason, the Government will have to look elsewhere, but the need for additional resources can no longer be denied.

Shortly before coming to the Chamber for the debate, I heard on the news that the Secretary of State has said that the reconfiguration involves not only integration of care for the elderly and social care with the mainstream health care services. That is important, but it also involves dealing with the divisions between the acute hospitals, which take the bulk of the spend, and GPs. The reconfiguration must mean that more is done by GPs when services can be sensibly provided by them, and that less is done in hospitals. I believe I am correct that that idea was first mooted by Lord Darzi in around 2008-09. The word used at the time was “polyclinics”, which require a lot of investment. In the interview on television news, the Secretary of State said words to the effect that we need more GPs and 15,000 more community workers in GP practice to make it a success, both of which clearly require more money.

Somehow or other, the Government must face up to the fact that, when it comes to claims for money, services to patients in Coventry and cities throughout the country must be increased. Otherwise, we will have more closures of local management committees and GP practices. Some 518 UK practices have closed in the past five years. Others have expanded, but in Coventry alone, eight major practices have closed. We have shrinkage of capacity and an increase in demand. By the definition of those two statements, we have a crisis, which is the subject of our debate.

Will the Minister tell us how far the Government have got with the pilot scheme under the clinical commissioning group in north Lancashire? The pilot intends to find out how the additional resources—£1 million has been put up—can be fed in without taking away from other parts of the health service, which it is important to emphasise. How is that working out?

That point came to my attention with the letter and prompted me to apply for the debate. The situation was highlighted in an early-day motion back in June. I did not sign it at the time but have rectified that. It was tabled by a Member who speaks for the Liberal party and seconded by two distinguished Labour Members, a former Chairman of the Select Committee on Health and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), a previous Labour Secretary of State for Health—he was Secretary of State in one of the earlier Labour Administrations. An amendment that I would be interested in supporting was tabled by a Government Member. He said that money was available for that pilot study. I would like to hear how it is making services more effective and providing more resources effectively for the delivery of GP services.

There is a conundrum. Why are GP practices not as attractive as they ought to be to new entrants? Fewer of those qualifying in the medical profession want to go into general practice, hence we have a net decline in the total numbers at the very time when, for all the reasons I have given, we should be increasing those numbers. Why is it so difficult? When one gets into a practice, and before becoming a partner, one gets more than £50,000 a year. Beyond that, when people become partners, they get approaching £100,000 and sometimes more, even in the initial stages. The average pay for GPs in Coventry is more than £100,000 a year.

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

Some months ago, I visited one or two different general practices in Coventry. The disparity in medical technology was startling. I have raised that in the House before, but I hope the Minister will touch on the reasons why we get such disparities.

[Mr Robinson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

Some 10,000 GPs—I am sure these figures are well researched by Deloitte—have expressed an intention to retire in the next five years. That is 2,000 a year, and Labour is promising to increase the number of GPs by 8,000. We will therefore need considerably more than that just to remain where we are now. What are the projections for doctor qualifications and the division between secondary and primary care? Are we catering for enough or will we have a continuing crisis with people blaming the previous contract, as they do in the press all the time, when in fact there are simply not enough doctors or resources to go around?

I do not want to say that all doctors are perfect. They are no more perfect than the rest of the human race. The simple fact is that they are under strain. I could cite many instances, but I would like to mention one in particular. Dr Jamie Mcpherson, the secretary of the local medical committee in Coventry, is a very fine and dedicated GP whom I have known for years—he was one of the first people to come and see me when I was first elected—through the troubled years when Lady Thatcher’s Governments were first introducing tremendous cost pressures. When there was the idea that GPs would be budget holders of practices, he came to see me and said, “We don’t want that. We are aware we have to improve, but we want to be doctors serving the community.” That was his view. There is always a tension between the pressure to make GPs into budget holders who look at costs and the need for them to be committed to what they are really there for: serving the community as doctors.

I said I would give plenty of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South to speak and I intend to do so. Before I sit down, however, I would like to raise a few more points. What are the Government’s plans to ensure that there are more GPs, not five years out but in the next year or two? Can we expect any net increase in resources and in the number of GPs? Do we have any plans to have 15,000 extra community care health workers? It seems to me that we have an undue concentration on the reorganisation of the secondary sector. We have always had, in this House and outside, a top-down preoccupation with the secondary sector, the acute hospital, as if we solve everything by a concentration on it.

When I received the letter from the Coventry GPs, I realised that an increasing problem relates to the place that GPs occupy within the health community. What progress is being made in north Lancashire? What are the Government’s plans in the next year or two—they must have them, because they budget over three years—for the number of GPs, increasing resources and the establishment of new buildings?

I would like to mention another point that has been brought to my attention. There has been some investment in new buildings for GP practices. Has that investment been made with a view to them becoming polyclinics and taking on more of the “routine” jobs, if we can call them that? They are still very specialist and require trained nurses, which is why Labour has plans for 20,000 more nurses—not all, perhaps, for GP surgeries—and 8,000 more doctors. They are very skilled jobs, even though they are more routine. How much of the investment in new buildings for GPs has been devoted to the provision of a wider range of care? I ask that because it is clear that the capital cost of investing in providing new premises for practices is one of the stumbling blocks to getting new entrants into GP practices.

The other point I want to draw attention to when it comes to the Government’s plans, in addition to whether there is a problem with the practices and the capital costs of buildings, relates to women GPs. Nearly half of all GPs are now women—I think it is roughly 50%—and they need to be able to work part time. We therefore need a flexible contract. Is it flexible and is flexibility encouraged? They have a tremendous and increasing role to play.

Those are the questions I wanted to put to the Minister. We are very pleased to see him in his place and I am very pleased that we are having this debate.

16:39

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) for the invitation to contribute to this evening’s Adjournment debate. I am told—I hope I have got this right—that it is the Minister’s birthday today, so may I get off on the right footing by wishing him a happy birthday? [Interruption.] He is looking rather puzzled about how I might have found out, but I think we should wish him a happy birthday anyway, even if he disagrees with what we say in this debate.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, because family doctors in Coventry have warned that local GP surgeries are at breaking point. The Coventry local medical committee has written to the Government to highlight just how much GPs are struggling. The letter was sent on behalf of 198 GPs, nurses, managers and other staff. I am concerned that the life of a GP is becoming increasingly unattractive. We are seeing earlier retirement and emigration to other countries. We do not want a shortage of experienced GPs because we are driving them away. We are all aware of the demographic changes that are putting increased pressure on GPs, but we can try not to exacerbate them. I have written to the Health Secretary on this matter and I look forward to the reply.

I want to raise a few areas of concern about the ways in which GPs are put under pressure. I have heard from GPs on the ground that the level of paperwork required is ever increasing. Targets for GPs can be useful, but GPs feel that they are continually trying to satisfy changing requirements in order to receive the required funding. When that is combined with the climbing numbers of appointments, GPs are hard pushed to tick all the boxes needed to ensure that they are not financially penalised. I am concerned that GPs are being forced to spend far too much time doing administrative and managerial work, which is simply not practical when patient numbers are soaring and GP numbers are dropping. That has been made far worse as a result of the Government’s top-down reorganisation of the national health service, with the introduction of GP-led commissioning. We ought to be asking our GPs to do what they should be doing: treating patients, rather than being swamped in paperwork.

I am concerned that, as a result, GPs are unable to meet the expectations of patients. GPs routinely work between 10 and 12 hours a day and offer appointments at 10-minute intervals. That is extremely demanding, but it also means that they are unable to give patients the care they would wish to. For example, 10-minute slots do not allow time to discuss more than a few medical issues, and certainly not in any depth. Doctors want to help their patients, but the vast numbers of patients, combined with the paperwork and administrative work demanded of them, make that difficult. Patients deserve doctors who have the resources and the time to provide the best care they can.

Last year, a survey of GPs by the British Medical Association showed those points clearly. Almost all the doctors responding to the survey said that bureaucracy and quality and outcomes framework box-ticking had increased in the past year, 94% said that their workload had increased, 82% felt that some of the new targets were reducing the number of appointments available to the majority of patients, 90% said that their practice’s resources were likely to fall in the next year, and 45% said they were less engaged with the new clinical commissioning groups because of the increased workload. Perhaps most significantly, 86% of GPs said that morale had fallen in the past year.

I know that GP surgeries are working hard to keep things going, but we cannot replace resources. Will the Minister make a commitment to Labour’s £2.5 billion Time to Care fund? The Time to Care fund will support 20,000 more nurses, 8,000 more GPs, 5,000 more care workers and 3,000 more midwives. Nothing speaks like adequate funding. The extra funding will help to reduce the pressure. I want to know what the Government are doing to alleviate the pressure on GPs, to ensure they have the adequate resources to do the job and to improve morale. Finally, will the Minister make a commitment to Labour’s plans to spend more on the NHS?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Minister, and the House wishes him a happy birthday.

16:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) for his kind regards in that respect.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on securing this debate. Like his hon. Friend, he raised a number of important broader points about the future of general practice and the work force—I hope to provide some reassurance in that regard—and some important local issues, which I also intend to address.

I commend both hon. Members for their interest in local health care matters as they affect their constituents, and I pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of all the GPs and other staff working in primary care in Coventry and surrounding areas. The House will agree, I am sure, that good quality patient care is expected, regardless of which part of the country we live in. GPs are the bedrock of our NHS, with an estimated 340 million consultations taking place in general practice every year. We want to ensure that we always give GPs the right support so that they can deliver the best possible care for patients.

I am aware that the Coventry and Rugby local medical committee of the British Medical Association issued an open letter on 26 September, giving its views on national and local issues in general practice.

Let me turn first to one of the important points raised in the debate, which was that there has quite rightly often been a focus on the NHS as viewed through the prism of secondary care, yet the majority of engagements with patients is in primary care and in the community. We need to recognise the role of pharmacy, too, as many people’s first point of contact will be with the pharmacist and, in the NHS, with their GP or another element of primary and community health care. It is therefore important to challenge that traditional prism through which the NHS tends to be regarded. We know that it is not just about hospitals; it is about primary care, too, and about ensuring that we invest to support GPs and deliver other high-quality community health care services.

[Mr Robinson]

We are greatly reassured by the Minister and agree with what he said. Will he confirm the figure—I was quite surprised to discover it—that at least 90% of all initial contacts with the NHS are through primary services? As he rightly says, it is mainly GPs, but chemists and others, too. Is the 90% figure correct?

[Dr Poulter]

I believe that that estimate is correct, although it is impossible to give a totally accurate figure, because some of the consultations, particularly with a pharmacist, might be informal rather than registered as an official consultation. For many people, it is important to get advice from their local pharmacist about how better to manage their medication regime or just to seek simple advice about what to take for an upset stomach. Those informal consultations are not usually registered in the same way as GP consultations, even though they happen every single minute of every day in our health service. Those points of contact are in the community, not in secondary care. This is how most people will come into contact with the health service, although in this place we sometimes talk about the NHS through the prism of secondary care. It is a legitimate challenge for all us of to recognise the importance of primary and community care and to continue to invest in and support those people who deliver that when we design health care services in the years ahead.

As a doctor myself, I particularly recognise the work of GPs and the vital role that they play. Shortly after the local medical committee issued its letter, as highlighted in the remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry North West, the Government were pleased to see that NHS employers, on behalf of NHS England and the BMA, reached agreement on changes to the GP contract. The BMA made the point that these changes will provide much needed breathing space for general practice and greater stability for patients. However, we accept there is much more that we need to do in the longer term to support general practice, such as recruiting more GPs to help tackle GP burn-out. I shall say more about that later.

We are of course pleased to have reached agreement with the BMA, and I think it is useful to set out a few points about what we have done nationally and what we want to do in the coming years, as this will help to address some of the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman.

First, it is worth highlighting some of the investment in general practice that has taken place. We recognise the need for a reversal of the shift that the hon. Gentleman described so articulately—the shift that has taken place, over decades of investment, away from community care and towards hospital care. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the latest figures, which show that the total investment in general practice increased in cash terms by 2.92% between 2012-13 and 2013-14, from £7,863.8 million to £8,093.4 million. I shall write to him to confirm those figures, but I think we should all welcome the reversal of the traditional shift in favour of secondary care, towards general practice and other primary care. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that NHS England published its “Five Year Forward View” last week. In that report, it committed itself to more investment in primary care over the next five years, including investment in infrastructure.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about GP numbers. Although the headcount figure in this year’s annual work force census shows a very small decrease of 29, the full-time equivalent figure has increased by 423, or 1.2%, which represents a real increase in capacity in the system. There are now 36,294 full-time equivalent GPs working in the NHS, including registrars and retainers. That is an increase of 423 since 2012, and an increase of more than 1,000 since 2010. There are 329 full-time equivalent GPs working in the Coventry and Rugby clinical commissioning group area, compared with 305 in 2010, so numbers are beginning to increase locally. I hope that that, too, is reassuring.

I understand that the NHS England Arden, Herefordshire and Worcestershire area team is working with the deanery, examining work force development issues and, specifically, ways of improving the process for GPs who want to return to general practice after a career break. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that the work force now includes many women GPs. That is one of the great strengths of the profession, but we must bear in mind the need to enable women who take career breaks in order to start a family to return to general practice. I know that a great deal of work is being done in that regard, not just locally but nationally, involving the Royal College of General Practitioners and the General Medical Practice.

We accept that the work force must grow to meet rising demand from an ageing population. That is why our mandate to Health Education England requires 50% of trainee doctors, after graduation—3,250, on the basis of current forecasts—to enter GP training programmes by 2016; the current figure is about 40%. That will enable further increases to be made in the GP work force: we expect an increase of about 5,000 by 2020. Although numbers are rising, we know that GPs need more resources.

[Mr Robinson]

My hon. Friend and I are very reassured by what the Minister has said. As for the numbers—which, of course, we always have to plan for—does the increase of 5,000 by 2020 mean an increase in the total number of doctors, or an increase in the number of GPs? Will that be enough, given that 10,000 doctors will retire from general practice alone in the next five years? Does the 5,000 figure relate to the position after those GPs have retired? How does the calculation work?

[Dr Poulter]

The figures that I gave are based on what we assume will be the attrition rate over the next five years. The total number of doctors has increased by, I believe, about 7,000 over the last four years, but the 2020 figure relates specifically to GPs.

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. The same consideration has historically applied to health visitors. When a large proportion of that work force has been close to retirement over a five or 10-year period, it has meant the loss of a great deal of experience, but that is not the only issue: there is also the need to plan for those retirements in advance. The figures that we worked out with Health Education England take account of attrition rates.

Part of that is about ensuring that half those medical students become GPs on graduation; currently, only 40% do so. That is where the extra increase in capacity will come from. That will also address the fundamental issue that we have been discussing today—namely, that we need more people working in the community and in primary care. We need to move the prism of the discussion about what good health care looks like away from it being just about delivering good health care in hospitals.

The work being undertaken by Health Education England will improve the applications and fill-rate for GP training. The work includes: a review of the GP recruitment process; development of a returner and refresher scheme; development of a pre-GP year to give prospective GP applicants exposure to the specialty; and careers advice for foundation doctors and medical students. That careers advice is important. When I was at medical school, everyone in my year wanted to be a hospital doctor. I entered a hospital specialty. It is therefore important that, from day one at medical school, students are encouraged and supported to recognise the tremendous opportunities that a career in general practice could offer.

Part of the challenge is to set the aspirations of medical students appropriately and to recognise that the work of a general practitioner is as important as—if not sometimes more important than—the work of a hospital specialist. We need to encourage greater recognition of that fact in medical schools, given that we want to deliver more care in the community. I believe that it is Lancaster medical school that has done a very good job of placing a greater emphasis on prospective GPs doing more community-based and primary care placements during medical school training. That has encouraged more students to enter general practice afterwards. I think I am right in saying that it is Lancaster medical school, but I will write to the hon. Member for Coventry North West after the debate to outline exactly where that kind of initiative has been effective. When looking at how we should train our future work force, it is vital to ensure that more medical students focus on a career in general practice from an early stage of their development if we are to encourage more of them to choose that route. We know that that has worked in the past.

I shall not detain the House by describing the work that Health Education England is doing nationally. Instead, I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions by talking about what we are doing now to support GPs through technology to enable them to provide a better service to patients. This applies not only to the service available during the current opening hours but to how we might facilitate community and primary care services on a more seven-days-a-week basis.

Last autumn, the Prime Minister announced a challenge fund of £50 million to support innovative GP practices in improving services and access for their patients. As well as offering seven-days-a-week access and evening opening hours, pioneer GP groups will test a variety of forward-thinking services to suit modern lifestyles, including Skype, e-mail and phone consultations. We need to recognise that this is about engaging with people on their own terms. Someone who is working might want to engage with their GP in a different way from someone who is retired, for example. The challenge fund will help to address those questions.

The challenge fund is now supporting more than 1,000 practices covering every region. The pilots will draw best and innovative practice from GPs on the ground to determine what is needed and works locally. We recently announced a second wave of access pilots, with further funding of £100 million for 2015-16. Yesterday, NHS England published details of how to apply to become a wave 2 pilot site, including the application criteria, process and time scales. I hope that practices in Coventry will take advantage of that fund and make applications to support local patients.

The £3.8 billion Better Care Fund combines existing funding in a single health and care pot, promoting integrated care and joint working between health and care services. It aims to ease pressure on services by encouraging greater prevention and by supporting people to stay independent for as long as possible. I have been informed that, in 2015-16, the Coventry clinical commissioning group will receive £9 million to improve services in the local area. Demand continues to grow nationally, and Coventry is no exception to that trend. However, I am told that significant work has been done over the past few years to increase access and to support local initiatives. Significant investment has been made in premises to improve better access to services and an improved patient experience. Four practices co-located to the City of Coventry health centre in 2012 and three practices moved to the new centre at Clay lane in 2013. The hon. Gentlemen raised some issues about practice closures—

17:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It being Five o’clock and there being a total lack of Whips in the Chamber—

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

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempt to be helpful, but I will invite the Minister to move that the House do now adjourn, after which he may recommence his speech.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Dr Poulter.)

[Dr Poulter]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the lack of the usual accompanying member of the Treasury Bench team to conclude proceedings, but I am pleased to continue the informative debate we have been having.

I was addressing the point about practice closures. The way the information is collected sometimes leads to a headline of “practice closures”, but it may well be that practices have merged, and it is important to recognise that when we have a debate, even an informed one such as this. When a number of practices have co-located locally to improve premises and there has been improved investment, that is an enhancement of services; it in no way diminishes the services available to patients. I do not know the details of each and every surgery in Coventry, but clearly collaboration has taken place, along the lines of the Darzi model outlined by the hon. Member for Coventry North West, whereby surgeries can pool their resources and work together. That can bring benefits to all their patients and mean an additional freeing up of money to invest in other community-based health services, for example, physiotherapy or speech and language therapy. That approach has worked well in many parts of the country, including in the examples I gave in Coventry.

I understand that NHS England has also given approval for new premises for the Prior Deram Walk practice in Canley, Coventry, with the new facility expected to be completed next summer. Ongoing investment is taking place locally. Practices in Coventry have a good provision of extended hours, through the enhanced service for extended hours, and have adopted online booking for appointments and repeat prescriptions. NHS England’s area team monitors complaints from patients and is currently receiving no complaints about access or difficulty in registering with a practice in the Coventry area, although if there are concerns, I would be happy to take an intervention.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for his announcement about a new practice in Prior Deram Walk, which is badly needed and which we would welcome.

[Dr Poulter]

I am pleased to have brought some good news about future planning to the debate. As I will be writing to the hon. Member for Coventry North West in detail about some of the initiatives with medical students, I am happy to outline further the future plans for that practice in the letter.

GP patient survey results from 2014 indicate that 85% of people who responded in the Coventry and Rugby clinical commissioning group area rated their GP surgery as “very good” or “fairly good”. Although this is a high proportion, it could of course be improved further. The figure is, however, testament to the work of local GPs and the quality of care they provide, alongside everybody who works in those practices. I am also aware that Coventry local medical committee had concerns that Coventry and Rugby CCG was not following NHS England planning guidance and investing more in general practice to support it in transforming the care of patients aged 75 and older. I understand the LMC has now reached agreement with the CCG on that, which is good progress. Our plans for personalised care for the most vulnerable patients included NHS England asking CCGs to set aside £250 million from existing funds. However, as has always been the case, CCGs are not restricted to using this funding on general practice only. For example, in some areas, CCGs have used the funding to employ extra district nurses for local practices.

On the important point about the wider community work force, it is increasingly the case that although a nurse may be counted as a member of hospital staff, their role goes across not just the hospital, but the community. That is particularly the case for nurses who support patients with long-term conditions such as multiple sclerosis and diabetes. Although that nurse is officially counted as a hospital employee, they play an increasingly important role in supporting the patient in the community. Having visited the local hospital in Coventry, I know that there is a great emphasis on the hospital working much more collaboratively with the community. The role of the hospital is about not just picking up the pieces when things go wrong but proactively supporting patients, especially those with long-term conditions, when they are at home.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I apologise to the Minister for intervening on him while he is replying to a debate on Coventry. He just mentioned collaborative service. The Barkantine practice in my constituency combines a 10-handed GP practice with a walk-in centre. It is able to offer appointments from 8 o’clock in the morning to 8 o’clock at night seven days a week, which is what the Prime Minister made a big point about in his conference speech. However, because of restructuring, the practice is having to hand over its walk-in centre finances to the local CCG, which means that the critical mass for providing the 8 am to 8 pm service seven days a week is no longer appropriate. Will the Minister look at that with regard to collaborative working, as we are talking about breaking down a system that the Prime Minister wants to see replicated across the country?

[Dr Poulter]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not detain the House in addressing that specific point today, but I will look into it and write to him separately about it. We have discussed local issues in his constituency before. I will take away what he says and get back to him, hopefully with some reassurance on the points that he has raised.

The CCG is developing a pre-hospital model to help manage urgent care and reduce attendance and admission to hospital. The development includes operational and clinical staff from a number of organisations including patient champions, primary care, local trusts and authorities, and unscheduled care providers.

The model being considered at the moment describes a community urgent care system designed around the patient, ensuring easy and timely access at a convenient location without blocks or diversions. The CCG and its partners at the Coventry urgent care board have developed and agreed a winter capacity and resilience plan. NHS England has made £2.8 million available to support the plan, and a number of specific winter schemes are already being put in place. They include: additional home care capacity for both planned and unplanned support; additional social worker capacity to support A and E and ward board rounds; GP responders; and hospital at home.

The plan sets out a clear mechanism for engaging and developing leaders and staff to enable the cultural changes required to support clinical commissioning activities, performance improvements and services changes necessary in the changing NHS environment at a local level. As we have said, this is about ensuring that the emphasis is moved away from a reactive care model in the hospital—having met the staff in Coventry I know that it is a very good reactive care model—and giving people better support and care at home. That is what investment in local GP practices and increasing GP numbers is about. It is also about ensuring that the right relationships are engaged at a local level to support the right type of care being delivered to patients in Coventry. Its focus is on developing internal capacity and capability to ensure that the emphasis is on upstream interventions, preventing people from becoming so unwell that they need to go into hospital, and making sure that people with long-term conditions and disabilities get the proper community-based support that they need.

I hope that I have brought some reassurance to the hon. Members for Coventry North West and for Coventry South, and I have a couple of points on which I will write to both of them. Once again, I convey my gratitude to the front-line staff working in Coventry. I have seen the local hospital for myself and know how hard local staff work. It is clear that investment is going into GP premises locally and that there is a commitment to continuing to support general practice in Coventry and the development of improved community services to ensure that the big challenge that faces the NHS, which is to support people with long-term conditions, is met, not just nationally, but in particular for those patients who need services from the NHS in Coventry.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 16 October, during the Backbench Business Committee debate on cycling, I said that

“the proportion of cars on that stretch of road is already less than 9%”.—[Official Report, 16 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 502.]

Further research has clarified that the 9% figure refers to an assessment of the percentage of private cars using the A3211 route at certain times of the day. This is based on counts carried out by transport consultants Steer Davies Gleave for Canary Wharf Group. It would have been more accurate for me to have said, “the proportion of private cars on that stretch of road is already less than 9% at some times of the day.”

I am grateful to be able to set the record straight. I apologise for not accurately reflecting the position. I am not sure whether this qualifies technically as misleading the House as it was an incomplete picture, but I apologise unreservedly for doing so, as that was clearly not my intention.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I recall the lively debate and the lively bit of road to which he refers. The House is grateful to him for coming forward with his usual courtesy and sense of duty in order to set the record straight.

Question put and agreed to.

17:11

House adjourned.

Restoration of the mainline platforms at Carnforth railway station

Thursday 30th October 2014 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners support David Morris MP’s campaign to support the reinstatement of the platforms at Carnforth Station on the West Coast Mainline.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put pressure on Lancashire County Council to approve funding for a feasibility study to allow the platforms to be re-instated.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by David Morris, Official Report, 21 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1214.]

[P001375]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

In line with our localism agenda, it is for the Local Authority to determine whether such a scheme is a priority for them and to carry out a feasibility study. Therefore, Lancashire County Council are free to make their own decisions on whether to progress with this scheme. At present the Government have no plans to reinstate the platforms at Carnforth station as stopping main line trains would reduce the capacity of the line and increase the journey times of long distance express services.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 30th October 2014 Westminster Hall

Thursday 30 October 2014

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

Arms Exports and Controls

Thursday 30th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: First Joint Report from the Committees on Arms Export Controls, HC 186, and the Government response, Cm 8935.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

13:30

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

As this will be our last opportunity during this Parliament to debate a report by the Committees on Arms Export Controls, I start by thanking most warmly my colleagues from the four Select Committees who have served on our Committees during this Parliament for the time that they have given, and most particularly for the tenacity that they have brought to our scrutiny of the Government. I also thank our staff who, because they are so few in number, are exceptionally cost-effective. Most particularly I thank the Clerk, Mr Keith Neary, who has given the Committees exemplary service for the greater part of the Parliament during which he has been Clerk.

I am conscious that the increasing width and depth of our Committees’ scrutiny of this key area has imposed a significant additional work load on the four Departments concerned, especially the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both of which we have visited as Committees to see arms export control procedures in operation. I thank the officials for how they have responded to that increased work load, and I make it clear that in so far as there are shortcomings in those responses, that is entirely a matter for Ministers. That brings me to the two areas of major shortcomings that I must address in opening this debate, both of which relate to what the Committees and I regard as the single most important area of Government policy: the export of weapons and dual-purpose goods that can be used for internal repression.

The previous Government’s arms export control policy was set out in a ministerial written answer on 26 October 2000 by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). It included a key statement of policy, which remained unchanged throughout the life of that Government:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed…by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 200W.]

We spent two years during this Parliament going hither and thither with Ministers on whether they adhered to that policy, had changed it, or were seeking to change it. That was brought to a conclusion this year when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the present Government’s arms export control policy in a written ministerial statement on 25 March. When that statement appeared, the previous Government’s policy wording, which I have just quoted, was dropped. Notwithstanding that fact, the Business Secretary said in his statement:

“None of these amendments should be taken to mean that there has been any substantive change in policy.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 10WS.]

Since March, when the Business Secretary gave his written ministerial answer, the Government have made various attempts to downgrade or outright dismiss the key policy wording on arms exports and internal repression in the original ministerial written answer of October 2000. First, in their latest annual report on United Kingdom strategic export controls, which was published in July, the Government chose to describe the wording in question as “the preamble”, even though the word “preamble” does not appear anywhere in the answer given by the right hon. Member for Neath.

Then, in a letter to me on 6 October, the Foreign Secretary tried to maintain that that key wording did not represent a statement of policy at all, saying:

“The text in question did not contain any substantive statement of policy.”

I leave it to hon. Members to judge whether that is the case:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed…by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.

That was the statement in the written ministerial answer recorded in Hansard.

I stress to the House that it was the unanimous view of all four Select Committees comprising the Committees on Arms Export Controls that that wording did represent a substantive statement of policy. It was also the view of the right hon. Member for Neath, who came before the Committees to give oral evidence on that very point. When we asked him specifically whether he thought that policy on arms exports and internal repression had changed, he said:

“So I do think the policy has changed. It is a more relaxed approach to arms exports.”

In the light of those facts, as far as the Committees are concerned—we made this clear in our report—only one, regrettable conclusion can be drawn from those important exchanges on arms exports and internal repression: the Government have made a significant change in policy, but have not been prepared to acknowledge that such a change has taken place. I put it formally to the Government that they should consider most carefully whether they should now offer an apology to the Committees and the House for making a change in policy without being prepared to acknowledge that to the Committees.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Hon. Members may be aware that, in terms of development, the UK scores extremely well except on one significant issue: arms exports. That is the issue that drives our ratings down the development index. The Minister might not think that that matters, but will he acknowledge that there is a perception, which the Chair of the Committees is bearing out, that the UK is more inclined than other countries to sell arms to countries and regimes where their use may be questionable? That slightly undermines our reputation for being a pro-development leader.

[Sir John Stanley]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point as a member of the Committees on Arms Export Controls and the Chair of the International Development Committee, and I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to it.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In their excellent report, the right hon. Gentleman’s Committees draw attention to the sale of anti-personnel equipment to Bahrain and raise quite reasonable concerns about its use to control demonstrations and so on. For a while, it seemed that the Government were listening to such concerns, but in April last year, they changed their policy and did indeed sell armoured personnel carriers and other equipment to Bahrain. Does he have any continuing concerns about the supply of such equipment to Bahrain and its use there?

[Sir John Stanley]

The Committees most certainly do. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, we included in our report specific questions to the Government about how particular items that have been approved for export to Bahrain can be regarded as compatible with the export criteria that they supposedly follow. We therefore have responded specifically to that.

I come now to our second area of disagreement with the Government on arms export policy and internal repression, which is with particular reference to exports to authoritarian regimes. In successive reports the Committees have made—again unanimously—the following recommendation:

“the Government should apply significantly more cautious judgements when considering arms export licence applications for goods to authoritarian regimes which might be used for internal repression.”

Regrettably, in successive responses, the Government have declined to accept our recommendation.

I shall set out one of the most striking differences between what has happened under the present Government and what took place under the previous one. Under the previous Government, going right back to their election in 1997—shortly after which came the foundation of the Committees, thanks to the initiative of the late Robin Cook, who was the first Foreign Secretary to produce an annual report on arms exports—the number of revocations or suspensions of existing licences stood at a mere handful. However, during the lifetime of the present Government, there has been a massive use of some 400 revocations and suspensions. I do not think that can be attributed only to the fact that there has been a considerable amount of international turbulence and conflict during this Parliament, as there were wars and turbulence during the previous Government’s lifetime.

I make it clear to the Government and the Minister that I am in no way critical of the huge number of revocations—indeed, I believe they are entirely justified. The key question, and the issue that has been exercising the Committees, is whether export approval should have been given to all the licences in the first place. To reflect what was said by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), in broad-brush terms, the Government’s policy on the export of goods that could be used for internal repression to authoritarian regimes has been that if the situation in a particular country looks to be reasonably quiescent, there is a fairly considerable presumption that the export should be approved, with the Government no doubt saying to themselves, “Well, if things turn really nasty in that country we can always revoke the export licence.”

I suggest to hon. Members that nothing illustrates the weakness and limitations—and indeed the perils—of that policy more clearly than what has happened in Libya. Prior to the Arab spring, there was a significant arms export trade, approved by the Government, to Libya under the Gaddafi regime. Not surprisingly, when the Arab spring came and the Government announced their total list of revocations of arms export licences to Arab spring countries, the greatest single number—a total of 72 licences—was for licences for Libya.

We all know what happened when Gaddafi fell from power. Back in the UK, the Government had imposed their revocations, but they were of very limited effect, for the simple reason that they are of no use whatever for exports that have already been shipped. As I have said before, it was an exercise in shutting the stable door after the arms had bolted. What happened in Libya itself? The security arrangements around Gaddafi’s arms dumps vanished and people ransacked them, principally for financial gain, as they saw an opportunity to make quick and substantial money. As UN experts have reported, those stockpiles were then sold on and dispersed all over the middle east and north and west Africa.

I suggest that nothing better illustrates the cogency of the Committees’ recommendation for a significantly more cautious policy when dealing with arms export licence applications for arms that can be used for internal repression than what has happened in Libya. It is regrettable that, in their response to successive reports, the Government have failed to accept our recommendation for caution. I certainly hope that a future Government will take a different view.

I turn now to the Government’s export policy towards a few individual countries, starting with Russia. The publication of the Committees’ latest report happened to coincide almost exactly with the appalling shooting down of the Malaysian airliner MH17 over eastern Ukraine. That created something of a dilemma for the Government, because although, on the one hand, Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, were rightly condemning the Russian Government for being complicit in the shooting down of the airliner and the terrible loss of life, on the other, as was shown by our Committees’ report, there were no fewer than 285 extant British Government-approved arms export licences to Russia, with a value of some £131 million for the standard individual licences alone.

That led at one point to an unknown spokesman in No. 10 announcing to the media that many of the British Government’s arms exports to Russia were for the Brazilian navy, which I have to say came as news to me, as I suspect it did to a considerable number of other people. However, I thought that I should follow that one up, so I wrote to the Business Secretary to ask him for the stated end user of each of the 285 extant arms export licences to Russia. Disappointingly, he refused to give the Committees that information unless we agreed not to make it public. I see no justification for imposing that condition on the Committees. It is hardly in accordance with the Government’s supposed commitment to transparency on arms exports, and it raises a significant issue of policy for the Committees and, therefore, the House. The Government already make public the countries to which approved UK arms exports are going, but in many cases we need to know not just the names of the countries, but the end users in those countries. For example, will the end user be a Government body, a Government security authority or a civilian user? That is key information, but at the moment, the Government simply pick and choose when they will disclose the end users. They gave the Committees the end users when we wanted to know who they were in relation to the export of dual-use chemicals to Syria. They told us the end users when we wanted to know who they were for sniper rifles exported to Ukraine. However, they have refused to give us that information for Russia on the basis that it may be made public, and the Committee will want to address that policy issue further.

What is the Government’s present policy on arms exports to Russia? The Prime Minister said in the House:

“On the issue of defence equipment, we already unilaterally said—as did the US—that we would not sell further arms to Russia”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1157.]

I would be grateful if the Minister clarified two points. First, when the Prime Minister said that we would not sell further arms to Russia, was he saying that all or only some will not be sold to Russia? If he was saying just some, which will continue to be sold? Secondly, on new licence applications, will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister’s statement means that all new licence applications to Russia are being refused, or only some, and if only some, which? The Minister’s clarification will be helpful.

I am sure that there was great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about some of the measures taken by the Hong Kong security authorities against those who were exercising their right to demonstrate peacefully, and especially the fact that tear gas was used against demonstrators. I am in no doubt that if the Metropolitan police had used tear gas against those who recently demonstrated peacefully in Parliament square, there would have been considerable concern and perhaps outrage on both sides of the House.

I thought that the Committees should do their own analysis of precisely what items of lethal and non-lethal equipment that could be used for internal repression the Government had recently approved for Hong Kong. We took the information from the website of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for the last two years from January 2012. Our analysis showed that the Government had approved tear gas exports to Hong Kong in four of the past eight quarters since January 2012. If those licence approvals were given on the grounds that the security authorities in Hong Kong would never use tear gas against those demonstrating peacefully, that was a questionable assumption, given mainland China’s track record of dealing with peaceful demonstrators. Our analysis of lethal equipment approved for export to Hong Kong since January 2012 showed that it included pistols, sniper rifles and gun silencers, which were all stated to be for use by a law-enforcement agency.

I have written to the Business Secretary to ask a series of questions about the Government’s policy on arms exports to Hong Kong, including:

“Have any extant Government approved export licences to Hong Kong been revoked or suspended?”

I also asked:

“What is the Government’s present policy on approving new licences for the export of arms and equipment to Hong Kong that could be used for internal repression?”

We have just received the Business Secretary’s reply, a key paragraph of which is:

“No licences for Hong Kong have been revoked, suspended or had Hong Kong removed from a multiple destination open licence. The Foreign Secretary has advised me that the use of tear gas by the Hong Kong police was an uncharacteristic response at an early stage of the protests, the scale of which caught the police by surprise, and was not indicative of a wider pattern of behaviour that would cross the threshold of criterion 2. In his view that, since that incident, the Hong Kong police have generally approached the protests carefully and proportionately. I have accepted this advice.”

I am sure that the Committees will want to reflect on the Business Secretary’s response and then report to the House. My own view, having received that letter only a short time ago, is that the reply seems to reflect the more relaxed approach to arms exports that could be used for internal repression to which I have referred. It certainly makes me wonder whether, if the original wording in the October 2000 statement by the right hon. Member for Neath had been retained instead of dropped, those arms exports of both lethal and non-lethal equipment would have been approved in the first place.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given the political situation in Hong Kong and the concerns that have been expressed internationally, there must be a real risk of a recurrence of exactly the sort of event during which tear gas was used against civilian protestors? There has not yet been a resolution of that protest; it continues in Hong Kong today.

[Sir John Stanley]

There is certainly a risk of a recurrence of exactly what the hon. Lady describes. I hope that a lesson has been learned by the Hong Kong police that it is not acceptable to use tear gas against those who are demonstrating peacefully. It remains a matter of concern to me, and I am sure that the members of the Committees will want to look closely at the analysis that accompanied my letter to the Business Secretary. The Committees will want to scrutinise closely whether it was wise in the first instance to approve exports of the sort of equipment—lethal and non-lethal—to which I have referred.

In turning to Israel, I want to make it crystal clear at the outset that I condemn unreservedly Hamas’s indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel. However, Israel has serious questions to answer about its use of lethal weapons that has resulted in the recent death of well over 2,000 Palestinians—men, women and children—in Gaza, the great majority of whom were certainly not Hamas fighters.

The Foreign Office, in its annual human rights report, includes Israel—entirely rightly in my view—in its list of the 28 countries of top human rights concern to the British Government. In our latest report, we have listed for each of those countries the extant UK Government-approved arms export licences. Our report shows that Israel has the third largest number of extant arms export licences of those 28 countries, with a total of 470—a figure exceeded only by China and Saudi Arabia. In addition, our report shows that of those 28 countries’ extant arms export licences, the largest by value is Israel’s, totalling £8 billion in value. However, I want to stress this very important point: that £8 billion is largely made up of a gigantic cryptographic equipment export order, valued at £7.7 billion, which the Defence Secretary, when he was Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, assured the Committees was

“for purely commercial end use.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 426WH.]

Early in August, following what happened in Gaza, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to list the controlled goods that the British Government had approved for export to Israel and that the Government had reason to believe may have been used by Israel in the recent military operations in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary gave me his reply on 19 August, saying

“officials have judged it unlikely that many of the components that were the subject of extant licences were for incorporation into systems that would be likely to be used offensively in Gaza”.

However, he went on to say, significantly in my view, that

“12 licences have been identified…where, in the event of a resumption of significant hostilities, and on the basis of information currently available to us, there could be a risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”

I think that is a very significant statement by the Foreign Secretary, and it once again reinforces the Committees’ recommendation for a significantly more cautious policy when dealing with the export of arms that can be used for internal repression.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have two points to make: first, was the right hon. Gentleman concerned about the supply of drone aircraft parts to Israel during the recent operation and, I believe, since then? Secondly, was it ever identified exactly what the commercial purpose of the massive £7.7 billion order was, and what the boundaries were between commercial use, civilian control and military use?

[Sir John Stanley]

The hon. Gentleman, again, is on to a very important area, and that again highlights the need to get much more transparency about end users. He makes an extremely valid point, which applies even more strikingly in relation to non-democratic countries—one-party state countries such as Russia and China, in effect, where there is no clear boundary between the Government sector and the private sector at all. That is why we need to get the Government to accept that these Committees, and therefore the House, are entitled to end-use information.

On components for unmanned aerial vehicles, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to what I just read out from the Foreign Secretary’s letter; he specifically refers to components that were for “incorporation into systems”. His view was that it was unlikely that they were used in Gaza, and I cannot take it any further than that, I am afraid.

If I may, I will just complete my points on individual countries. There are obviously a very large number of individual countries and others want to speak, and I want them to have their full time, but I make this point: in our report, we identified 12 countries in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s list of 28 countries of top human rights concern where it seemed to us that specific exports appeared to be in breach of one or more of the Governments’ arms export criteria. In our recommendations, we asked the Government to state why those exports were approved. Those 12 countries were: Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Uzbekistan and Yemen. We also asked the same question in relation to five other countries that are of concern to the Committees but are not on the FCO’s list of 28. Those five countries were Argentina, Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia and Ukraine.

For most of those countries, as the House will see in the Government’s response to our report—the Command Paper—the Government came back with a fairly formulaic response, certainly as far as the opening of their reply was concerned. They used this formula:

“The Government is satisfied that the currently extant licences for”—

and then they put in the name of the country—

“are compliant with the Consolidated Criteria”.

I want to assure the House that we shall not let the matter rest there. In our view, there is a substantial mismatch between what has been disclosed about extant licences and the Government’s arms export criteria. We want to examine that further, and we shall take oral evidence shortly from the industry and non-governmental organisations, and from the Business Secretary and the Foreign Secretary.

I turn to the other area of our report, which is international arms control agreements. Virtually all international arms control agreements are designed to control or halt proliferation of both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. The Committees have therefore extended their scrutiny of the Government’s policy to the entirety of international arms control agreements. The Government give an explanation of their policy in relation to some of those agreements in their “United Kingdom Strategic Export Controls Annual Report”, but a number of key agreements are omitted. For example, there is no reference to the fissile material cut-off treaty, or the chemical weapons convention, or the biological and toxin weapons convention, or significantly, to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

In the Committees’ last report, they recommended that the Government, in their annual report, make their coverage of international arms control agreements comprehensive, instead of only partial. It is disappointing that the Government, in their response to our questions on their annual report, have not accepted that recommendation, but I assure the House that the Committees will continue to scrutinise the Government’s policy across the totality of international arms control agreements.

I come to a few of the specific agreements, starting with the arms trade treaty. We warmly welcome the British Government’s ratification of the arms trade treaty on the first day it opened for ratification—2 April 2014. It is also very encouraging that the 50th country ratification, triggering the treaty’s legal entry into force, has now been achieved. According to the Government response to our report, entry into force will take place on Christmas eve 2014—an excellent Christmas present to all those concerned with international arms control.

However, it is particularly disappointing that of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council only the UK and France have ratified the treaty thus far. The US has signed but not ratified, and China and Russia have neither signed nor ratified. The House will agree that it would be a dismally poor example to the rest of the world if the remaining three members of the P5 failed to ratify the arms trade treaty. I hope that the British Government will continue to do their utmost to get those key countries to do so.

One of the most important arms control events in 2015, if not the most important, will be the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. In our report, we recommended that

“the Government states as fully as possible in its Response what are now its objectives for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2015”.

We did not get a particularly full response from the Government, but they did come back with three objectives:

“We want to agree further progress towards a world free from nuclear weapons and to highlight our actions in support of this; encourage action that will help to contain any threat of proliferation or non-compliance with the NPT; and support the responsible global expansion of civil nuclear industries.”

I hope that the Government will be rather more forthcoming, both to the Committees and to Parliament, about their detailed and specific objectives, and how they propose to try to achieve them in the run-up to the NPT review conference.

One of the great and largely unsung achievements of the Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev and Margaret Thatcher era was the intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement of 1987. The INF treaty is far and away the most important nuclear disarmament agreement that has been achieved since nuclear weapons were created. It was also the first and only time that the US and Russia reached a nuclear disarmament agreement based on zero-zero on each side. Against that background, it is of great concern that reports have appeared that Russia may be in breach of its INF treaty obligations. I took that up with the Foreign Secretary, who in his reply said:

“The US State Department’s recent annual ‘compliance’ report (Adherence to and compliance with arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament agreements and commitments) states that ‘the United States has determined that the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF treaty not to possess, produce or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”

That is a very serious statement from the Foreign Secretary and the US State Department. In my view, if the INF treaty breaks down, it will be the most serious reverse for multilateral nuclear disarmament that has so far occurred in the nuclear weapons era. I therefore urge the Government to do their utmost to mobilise the maximum possible international pressure on Russia to restore its adherence to its INF treaty obligations.

To conclude, Ministers are never happier than when they can deal with difficult issues with comforting generalisations. The devil is always in the detail, and in no area is that more true than arms export controls. I therefore make no apology for the length of the Committees’ latest report, which, taken with the all-important volumes of evidence, runs to some 1,000 pages. I hope that it will prove a valuable resource to those in the House and outside who want to inform themselves about the actuality of the UK Government’s arms control and arms export control policies, rather than just resting on ministerial generalisations.

The Committees are not remotely self-satisfied about our scrutiny and are sure that we can improve it further, but I believe that now in the UK Parliament we have the most detailed and most open parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s arms export policies of any of the major arms exporting countries, including the United States, where, under the relevant legislation, there are financial cut-off thresholds below which exports do not have to be reported to Congress. We of course have no such financial thresholds in our Parliament and in the relevant legislation.

In the course of this Parliament, the Committees on Arms Export Controls have substantially widened and deepened our scrutiny of the Government’s policies. First, we have for the first time put alongside the list of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s countries of top human rights concern—the 28 countries to which I referred—the extant arms export licences approved by the British Government for each of those countries. That has been an extremely worthwhile and very illuminating exercise. It has certainly left me, on certain points, with considerable concerns, but others will draw their own conclusions.

Secondly, we have very substantially extended our scrutiny of the Government’s policies on international arms control agreements. That, too, is a crucial area, even though the subject tends to receive not much public attention, in Parliament or outside. Thirdly, we have in this Parliament extended our scrutiny to a whole series of additional export items, including drones, Tasers, cryptographic equipment, the UK Government’s gifted exports and Government-supported arms export exhibitions.

I hope that we have discharged our scrutiny responsibilities to the House of Commons effectively in this Parliament, and that we have created a strong and powerful springboard for our successor Committees to carry forward scrutiny of the Government’s policies in the key area of arms control and arms export controls in the next Parliament.

14:19

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon, Mr Bayley. First, I want to look back to the debate last November about the work of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, in which we spent quite a bit of time discussing concerns about past and possible future exports to Syria. That was not surprising, given the recall vote that had taken place in September last year on arming opposition groups in Syria, and given the media controversy that had emerged about chemical weapons components coming from the United Kingdom.

At that debate, none of us talked or even knew about ISIL. Very few anticipated the descent into statelessness that we are now witnessing in Libya, to which the Chair of the Committees, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), has referred. Nobody could have foreseen the devastation and loss of innocent life caused by the conflict in Gaza this summer. That is why I urge all Members of the House to consider whether we are truly comfortable with our current arms export strategy. If we cannot foresee what events will occur in the next 12 months, let alone the next five or 10 years, and as most arms exports have a considerably longer shelf-life, there has never been such a need for a principled, precautionary and risk-based approach in a world of increasing volatility.

The Committees’ work has become more important with each passing year of this Parliament. I take the opportunity to convey my thanks, and that of the other members of the Committees, to our esteemed Chair, to our excellent Clerk, Keith Neary, and to the other staff who service our Committees for their unstinting dedication, thoroughness and unparalleled expertise in the preparation of the substantial and important report that we are discussing.

As the Chair has indicated, our report contains conclusions that are both positive and negative from the Minister’s point of view. The work on the arms trade treaty is a genuinely good sign. I am looking forward to participating next week in the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference here in London with delegates from across the world on how we can use the treaty to make real differences to people who live in conflict-afflicted areas. I hope that the United Kingdom, as it has done throughout the arms trade treaty process, will continue to take a leading role in the development of the treaty. The increased direct involvement of Ministers in the examination of sensitive export applications is also welcome. As the Chair has mentioned, I think that there is a direct correlation between that involvement and the number of licences that have been suspended and revoked in the past few years. Good work has been done on ensuring that applications are dealt with in a timely way and reducing the time-lapse in appeals.

As the Committees have made clear, it is more than disappointing that the Government’s record on transparency has been worryingly regressive this year. Although there is some merit in the aim of easing unnecessary bureaucracy by transferring more of our export licences from individual to open, we must not do that at the expense of transparency on sensitive issues where there are many legitimate concerns and where the geopolitics are changing at great speed.

The scaling back of the transparency initiative, which has included the reversal of previous public commitments by the Government to publish more information on the type, value and quantity of equipment transferred under open licences, sends a worrying message to the wider world that our stated principles may be only superficially adhered to. The fact that that occurred at the same time as the UK signed the arms trade treaty has exasperated many of the NGOs that supported the campaign for the treaty. The Government’s response to our recommendation to reverse that decision was grudging. They said that

“we concluded that the administrative burden would be too high.”

However, no substantive evidence from the industry was offered to justify that conclusion, and there was no such evidence in the Government’s consultation exercise. I believe that the Committees will want to probe that issue more closely in our next set of evidence sessions next month.

As well as transparency, we need consistency. The Committees’ Chair has already stated his concerns about the definition of the common criteria, and I support his views. The Government’s defence was to designate the relevant paragraph

“as a general statement that formed part of the introductory text”.

As such, apparently, it was of no importance. That is, frankly, nonsense. The text is designed to be read as a whole, and the reader is entitled to presume that it is consistent throughout. If it was not, a caveat would be added to that effect. There is no caveat in the definition of the common criteria, and it is simply unconvincing to try to present one retrospectively after our Committees have been trying to probe the matter for almost two years. That is not a mere grammatical point or a fixation on detail. In a volatile world, where many accepted wisdoms and assumptions have been torn apart and where western nations are increasingly castigated for being driven purely by self-interest, the need for the highest standards and the greatest caution about those to whom we export arms is more pronounced than ever. Much of the turmoil that we are witnessing in the middle east has developed from the impact of internal repression over prolonged periods of time, where, too often, we in the west have not given sufficient weight to the consequent risks.

Another use of language in the Government’s lexicon to ease them out of difficult dilemmas is the term “significant hostilities”. Our annual report predated the dreadful events during July and August in Gaza and Israel, which resulted in the death of more than 2,000 Palestinians, 67 Israelis and one foreign national, as well as the indiscriminate destruction of schools, hospitals and homes and the displacement of more than 470,000 people. As the Chair has done, I condemn the operation of Hamas and the indiscriminate bombing of Israel, but I also condemn the Israeli Government for the disproportionate nature of the attacks on Gaza, the consequences of which the civilian population had to take.

The UK working group on arms has stated its concern that the Government’s failure to suspend or revoke any of the existing licences is contrary to their obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the arms trade treaty, within which the Government have indicated that they are operating. The Government did not even follow their own domestic licensing criteria. As soon as hostilities commenced in July, there was a clear risk that the United Kingdom might be supplying military equipment that could be used, as the former Foreign Secretary indicated in a letter to the Committees, in the commission of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. The only proper response should have been the immediate suspension, if not the revocation, of the 12 licences identified by the Government in their internal review. In the Government’s response of 19 August, however, a new criterion appears to have been added. Suspension or revocation would not occur unless there was

“a resumption of significant hostilities”.

As the UK working group pointed out, that phrase has set a new, arbitrary and subjective threshold and a dangerous precedent.

I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that he will tell us on what basis that new test was agreed. Was there a discussion between No. 10, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Foreign Office or the Department for International Development about setting that qualification? I am sure that the document went past every single relevant ministerial desk before it was issued to our Committees. Has there been any discussion with our EU partners about a common approach on exports to Israel following the summer hostilities? Are the Government now prepared to remove that additional test and revert to their original criteria? If so, will they reconsider the licences and act to suspend them if those criteria have not been met?

As always, the Committees’ report contains a paragraph on the annual international arms fair in London. Frankly, it is time to put that embarrassing saga to an end. I fail to understand why the review has had to take 18 months so that the results are conveniently announced as the Government wind up business in time for the general election in the hope that attention is diverted elsewhere so that we do not see the report’s conclusion. Given that the organisation of such a large and substantial trade fair probably starts the day after the conclusion of the previous fair, surely the organisers, participants and Government staff tasked with enforcement need to know what may be required by the end of this year. Rather than waiting the full 18 months, is there any possibility that the Government can respond much more speedily to conclude the review and provide our Committees with the review’s conclusions so that we may comment on the conclusions in our final report before Parliament is dissolved?

Finally, I am concerned about the increasing use of surveillance equipment, including intrusion software, which I raised in last year’s debate. It is welcome that changes to controls have been reached this year via the Wassenaar agreement process, but we still await implementation. In their response to our report, the Government stated that they anticipate an amendment of the EU dual-use regulation by the end of this year. Will the Minister confirm whether the timetable will definitely be adhered to? There has been a suggestion that we may be falling behind the timetable for technical reasons. If so, will he confirm that the United Kingdom would consider unilateral measures, along the lines proposed earlier this year by our German partners? Have the Government conducted any recent review of the human rights concerns raised by a number of organisations, including Privacy International, that the current criteria may not be effectively catching exports of surveillance equipment? Privacy International mentions the UK Government’s export of such software to the Indonesian Government with an export credit guarantee this year. Any information that the Minister is able to provide today would be very helpful. If not, I suspect that we will want to probe further when we have our oral evidence session.

As I stated at the start of my speech, we live in a world of increasing volatility. Traumatic events with long-lasting impacts that require complex responses are occurring simultaneously in different regions of the world. The resources of even the most technically sophisticated Governments have been stretched as never before. Last week I heard a member of the US Administration with responsibility for defence matters state that they do not have time for routine meetings, such has been the demand on their time due to the crises across the world in recent months. We need to stop relying on old assumptions and appreciate that the risks are changing rapidly. Our response has to change, and arms exports are a key part of that policy. It can be all too easy for any Government to resort to shortcuts and sticking-plaster responses to avoid difficult choices, but that must be resisted. Clear principles, consistently adhered to with maximum transparency must be the way forward. I urge the Government to continue working with our Committees to achieve that aim.

14:29

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having the debate and look forward to the Minister’s response. This is the fourth day running that I have had meetings with him but, if this helps him, there are no plans for tomorrow.

I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) for his work as Chair of the Committees, for the analysis and the depth of their report, and for his preparedness to present it so well and in such detail today. I hope that we will see elected in the next Parliament someone as diligent and determined to ensure proper scrutiny of arms exports as he has been throughout this Parliament. We all owe him a debt of thanks, and it is sad to think that he will not be here after the next election, unless he changes his mind.

I want to make a number of points, but I will be brief. We should commend the late Robin Cook for our having this debate and these reports, and for the increasing tradition of openness in the Foreign Office on arms exports, human rights matters and recruitment policy in the diplomatic service of the future. The commendable changes that he introduced during his time as Foreign Secretary have stood the test of time. He will be remembered as a great Foreign Secretary for them, as well as for many other reasons.

While I want to raise detailed points about arms exports, we should think about the generality for a second. If we, as a country, export arms of any capacity or capability to another jurisdiction or regime, and those arms are used to abuse the human rights of people within those communities or within that society, that removes our ability to complain about those abuses because, in a sense, we are complicit due to our supplying weapons that have been used to oppress people. In that regard, the criteria adopted by the Committees and the Government’s response make interesting reading. I commend the Foreign Office for how its responses have been set out, because their helpful presentation means that one can quickly read the objection raised by the Committees and the Government’s response to it.

My first point is about Israel and Palestine. To reiterate what is said in the report’s introduction, we all witnessed what happened in Gaza recently. It was not the first operation—I hope it is the last operation, but it certainly was not the first—because there has also been Operation Cast Lead, among others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) pointed out, we have witnessed the destruction of Gaza several times over. There have been several worldwide appeals to rebuild Gaza only for it to be bombed and then rebuilt again some years later. We are exporting surveillance and other equipment to Israel, and indeed we are importing arms from Israel, but while the war crimes investigation organised by the United Nations Human Rights Council is ongoing, we need to think very carefully about our arms export policy for Israel.

I hope that the Minister is able to explain in detail the massive communications equipment order placed by Israel. I think the expenditure that has been cited is £7.7 billion, which is absolutely massive. I do not know what the equipment is for, but I cannot believe that a country of only 5 million people would want to spend so much on something that, while it could be used for commercial mobile phone services or something else, did not have a military component. I would be grateful to know what inquiries were made, what end-user surveillance there has been for Israel, and whether there will be restrictions on such exports in the future.

Paragraph 159 of the report describes the ongoing issues in Bahrain. For reasons that I do not fully understand, the Government decided at some point that it was safe to sell anti-personnel, riot control-type equipment and armoured personnel carriers to Bahrain. I was at the United Nations Human Rights Council a couple of months ago as a guest speaker in a seminar on human rights in Bahrain and the sale of equipment there. I talked to people who had been brutally assaulted on the streets of the capital city for taking part in a democratic protest. I hesitate to say this, but it seems that some of the equipment with which they were beaten may have been supplied by Britain. I also talked to the families of the medics who were threatened with permanent imprisonment, if not worse, for treating anyone who was injured during the disturbances. The human rights situation in Bahrain is very serious indeed, and I question why we are selling any equipment at all to Bahrain in the current circumstances.

Likewise, paragraph 141 makes the point about the repression of individuals and the unaccountable power of the police on Saudi Arabia. What it does not say—I am not making a criticism, but the report does not say it—is that it is very difficult to find out a lot about what is going on in Saudi Arabia because of the nature of its public media and the difficulties facing foreign journalists who try to report what happens there.

I realise that Saudi Arabia is a massive arms market—not only for Britain, but for other countries—and that seems to have an enormous impact on foreign policy relations with Saudi Arabia. However, the arms that have now appeared among ISIL forces in Iraq and Syria have all come from somewhere. They were not bought at the Defence Security and Equipment International exhibition, or anywhere else; they were bought from people who imported them from the USA, Britain and Russia—all kinds of places all over the world—because they had the financial resources to do so. Those arms were exported under licence at some point, and they have arrived with ISIL and are being used to kill large numbers of people in the most abominable ways. We therefore need to be a lot more assiduous and much tougher about what happens to the arms that we export.

I have deep concerns about Sri Lanka, which is also covered in the report. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an indication of the Government’s current thinking about the supply of arms to Sri Lanka. I know that the Prime Minister took the correct and quite brave decision to go to Jaffna during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and he obviously expressed concern about the treatment of Tamil people at that stage. Are the Government now planning to resume the sale of equipment to Sri Lanka, or not?

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North made a point about the Defence Security and Equipment International exhibition, which has become more than a bit of an embarrassment. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has pointed out that there were people at the exhibition advertising the sale of things such as electric shock equipment. Although that equipment is totally illegal in this country, it is on sale in London at an exhibition sponsored by the British Government. That is a cause of the deepest embarrassment, and I question whether we should be having the exhibition at all.

Paragraphs 120 to 122 of the report helpfully refer to nuclear weapons and their effects. This area is covered by several treaties, including the non-proliferation treaty. I asked the Minister a question about this on Monday, and I will continue to do so. The Austrian Government are hosting a conference on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons in Vienna at the beginning of December. That is a continuation of a conference hosted by the Mexican Government and, before that, by the Norwegian Government. Already, 135 nations have agreed to attend the conference, and 155 nations have supported New Zealand’s statement on the invitation to the next conference. This is a serious discussion about the effects of nuclear weapons on humankind as a whole, including not only those people who have already been affected by the explosions nearly 70 years ago in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those affected by nuclear testing elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will tell me that the Government are at least seriously considering their invitation to the conference and that they will encourage the other permanent members of the Security Council to attend, too. If we want to live in a nuclear-free world, as everyone claims to wish to, surely attending that conference has to be a good step forward.

The report also cites the middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone conference, which is now apparently supported by everybody. I have sat through a number of non-proliferation treaty review conferences during which a number of countries—principally countries within the region, and usually countries in the Arab League—have raised a proposal from the 2000 review conference that to stop the proliferation and spread of nuclear weapons across the middle east, as only Israel has nuclear weapons in the region at the moment, that middle east conference should try to create a region free of nuclear weapons and WMD. That has never happened, however. The Finnish Government were unable to organise it, but it has been reiterated that the conference will be held. At the last review conference, every permanent member of the Security Council—Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States—got up and said they supported that. Iran supports it. and Israel has not said no to it, so I wonder what is the impediment to that conference taking place, if all the players want to attend?

At the previous review conference, Egypt walked out. It did not leave the NPT, but its representatives said that they were angry at the lack of progress. If there is not progress on non-proliferation in the middle east, proliferation will happen, because somebody else will be able to develop nuclear weapons—the financial resources are certainly available—and we will then be in a very dangerous situation.

I welcome the section in the Committees’ report about chemical weapons. If anything good has come out of the crisis in Syria during the past two years—this is probably the only thing—it is that Syria at least acceded to the chemical weapons convention. The removal and destruction of chemical weapons from Syria is to be applauded. That step forward shows what can be achieved when the EU, the USA, Russia and Iran co-operate to try to achieve something.

The Committees report that Angola, Burma, Israel, North Korea and South Sudan have not signed the chemical weapons convention, however, and it is time that they did. It is time that the whole world signed up to it, because if we can have a worldwide convention on small arms and landmines, we should be able to insist that there is a genuine worldwide agreement on the abolition of chemical weapons, and then move on to other weapons.

We have to think carefully. It is too easy to say, “Sell arms to somebody—out of sight, out of mind.” That comes back to bite us, with civil wars and conflict, and with human rights abuses, some of which are carried out with weapons that have been made in this country. We should think carefully about that, before we so glibly say, “We support the arms industry.”

14:46

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Bayley, for calling me to speak. It is always a great pleasure to serve on Committees or attend debates with you in the Chair.

As I have done for the last few years when we have debated this issue, I thank and congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on the extensive work by his Committees, and on the way in which he has driven the Committees forward during the past few years. He has given more than 40 years of public service both to this House and to his constituents, and he will be a sad loss to discussion of this particular subject when he moves on after the next general election. Nevertheless, he has left a lasting legacy in this place as the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, and we wish him well in the next chapter of his political life outside this House, whichever chapter that may be and wherever it may take him.

We must scrutinise the Government’s policies in this sector, because arms control is critical. The Committees’ report is hugely valuable and must be highly commended. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) said, 12 months ago we could not have projected forward to where we are today in the international scene and landscape, and I hope that in 12 months’ time—when we come back to look at any further reports from the CAEC—things are better and not worse than they were last year, because I am sure that 12 months on from last year we would all agree that things are now worse, not better.

I will start by touching briefly on the contribution that the UK defence sector makes, not only to our country’s security but to our economy, because it shows how important it is for the Government to get arms export controls absolutely right. The arms industry generates annual revenues of more than £22 billion, including exports worth £6.5 billion per annum on average during the past decade. Consequently, it makes a significant contribution to the economy of the UK. It also plays a vital role in training, up-skilling and developing UK skills; it directly employs 162,400 staff in the UK, sustaining more than 100,000 other jobs through the supply chain; and, crucially, given the highly skilled nature of the workers in this industry, it employs nearly 5,000 apprentices across the sector.

It is within that context that it is important that the UK plays a key role in the international defence market, not only for the economic benefits but for the responsibilities that the market places on the UK Government in that international context. As I said when I outlined where we were last year compared with where we are today, globalisation of course brings countries into closer contact—mostly harmoniously, but as we have seen throughout the report, there are often areas of tension and friction when that contact happens.

It is right that we recognise the defence industry’s part in providing security, both here in the UK and in other countries as we help them to fulfil their right to self-defence. But that role, of course, comes with a heavy responsibility. The industry itself has a responsibility, but the Government are responsible for overseeing arms exports properly, ethically and robustly.

I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to some of the questions raised by the report. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who replied to the debate last year, skipped all the big questions asked in the report, so I hope that the new Minister, whom I congratulate on his recent elevation to the Foreign Office, will be able to respond in a more robust fashion.

I want to look at Labour’s record in government to give us some context for where we are now. It is worth reflecting on how we have come to this current position of oversight and why we are able to talk about these issues today. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) rightly mentioned the role that the former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, played in putting pressure on the then Government in relation to the arms to Iraq inquiry. The inquiry culminated in the Scott report and the bringing together of national export licensing criteria. He was proud to be able to bring that about. It was one of the first issues addressed by the Labour Government in 1997. It was not only the right thing to do; it brings transparency to this House on one of the most important issues that we deal with, not only in terms of defence but in terms of responsibilities and who we sell the items to around the world. On entering government, Labour introduced some of the toughest arms export regulations in the world at that time.

It is also important to reflect on where we have come from. In 1999, when the tough arms export regulations were put together, it was the first time that the matter had been looked at in a UK context since 1939. If we think the world has moved on significantly in the 12 months since we last discussed these issues, the world had certainly moved on significantly between 1939 and 1999. So we have had the consolidated criteria in 2000 and the Export Control Act 2002, and since 2004 the quarterly report has brought much greater scrutiny and transparency to our arms exports across the world. I am sure Members of Parliament of all parties recognise the importance of such changes. Although it is a difficult issue for a Government to deal with, it is right that the Minister should be here to answer the key questions in the report.

It remains the strategic approach of the Opposition that arms must not be sold to nations that will use them for external aggression or internal repression, and that they should be used for defence. That reflects the written ministerial statement that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling read out at the start. It was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in 2000. It is still the approach that we champion in opposition. We would not deviate from that. We recognise that nations have the right to defend their sovereign lands, but they do not have the right to oppress their people and use weaponry sold to them by this country to stamp on legitimate demonstrations, as we have seen on our television screens in the past few months.

The Committees on Arms Export Controls report is a voluminous report: more than 1,000 pages. The Chair of the esteemed Committee, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, asked whether I had received a copy of the report and whether I had read it. I am glad that it was published in an executive summary format, which was a little more digestible. It is important that the Government take on those 1,000 pages. It is not a political report with which to kick the Government but a very helpful document that runs through all the areas of concern about arms export controls. I want to concentrate on four aspects. Hon. Friends who have already spoken have concentrated on other aspects, but I want to concentrate on the four that I think are the most important in the report.

First, the change in the consolidation criteria. Significantly, the report criticises the Government’s removal of a key line from the consolidated criteria in March this year. We have mentioned this already. The line is:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed...by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.

Despite taking such positive steps with the arms trade treaty last year, we have now gone backwards in terms of the clarity that was required from the Government in that sentence. There has been justification from the Government for the removal of those criteria— the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling has already mentioned that—but it significantly weakens the test for arms exports. We are concerned about its removal and urge the Government and the Minister to reflect on that. Will the Minister explain—the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks did not do so last year—why there is dubiety about the removal of those particular criteria, and what is to become of “a more relaxed approach” to arms exports? Have the Government made a substantial change to policy without acknowledging it? I think the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked that before. The questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North on this issue must be answered directly by the Minister today. If that is the only answer we get, we will have moved on substantially from the report that is in front of us.

The second issue that I wish to raise was mentioned in the report this year and last year—it might have been mentioned in previous reports. It is the issue of the brass plating of companies. We discussed this at length during last year’s debate, and as the report says, the Government are still to take action. So what action has been taken over the past 12 months and what action is in the pipeline?

Although brass plating in a UK context works well—we would not deny that that is the case—this is about brass plating across international communities, where companies that have brass plating in this country operate against the brass plating rules that would apply here when operating overseas. That must be looked at clearly, but it again highlights the globalisation of the issue and why the export controls market must be monitored closely. There are big issues around the international co-operation that is required to deal with the exploitation of brass plating in this country. That is why the Minister should look into ways of developing a strategy, closing loopholes and collecting evidence—possibly in conjunction with other countries—to get the necessary detail and put the measures that are needed in place to enable us to discontinue the UK registration of such companies that exploit brass plating.

Brass plating in the UK should not mean irresponsibility elsewhere. The report specifically touches on that. There is much concern about the operation of front companies registered in the UK which operate overseas with impunity. What does the Minister have to say about that particular issue?

The third issue that I want to raise is arms brokers. The Government issued a call for evidence in April this year on a proposed pre-register of arms brokers. They committed to provide a formal response by September. It will be November this weekend, and I am not aware that the Government have kept to that timetable and produced a response. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will publish the result of their call for evidence on the need for a pre-licence register of arms brokers? The Government have not been consistent in their record of delivery in response to previous reports from the Committees.

The fourth area that I want to address relates to some current case studies. There are a significant number. The report highlighted 12 countries that cause concern, and another five are mentioned. I want to concentrate on three to highlight some of the issues in the report that the Government need to address.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

Of course, there is the issue of Russia, which has entered into the Balkans, causing reverberations across Europe and the region. There is the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which we saw in the summer, and in recent weeks—mentioned already this afternoon—the mass pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong that prompted a very strong and aggressive response from Government authorities, which was not in line with what we would expect from anything that has been exported from this country. In all those events, questions have been raised about the use of British exports. Indeed, some serious allegations and concerns must be addressed. Will the Minister concentrate on the big issues in his response?

In the case of Russia, the Government have given conflicting messages on exports to Russia. Both the Prime Minster and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), gave categoric assurances, with the latter stating in March this year:

“The UK will now, with immediate effect, suspend all extant licences and application processing for licences for direct export to Russia for military and dual-use items destined for units of the Russian armed forces or other state agencies which could be or are being deployed against Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 658.]

That is a fairly categoric assurance from the former Foreign Secretary. However, it was reported that, in July this year, 250 licences were still in force.

Can the Minister update the House and the Committees on whether the licences are still in operation? How many have been revoked, suspended or reissued? What assessment does he have for the Committees of the licence system and its effectiveness in these instances?

The second area of concern is the issue of Israel and Palestine. We can all recall the spiral of violence over the summer that engulfed Gaza, southern Israel and the west bank. We condemn, as we always have in this Chamber and across the House, the firing of rockets into Israel by Gaza-based militants. No Government on earth would tolerate such attacks on their citizens, but the disproportionate response, yet again—my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North mentioned Operation Cast Lead—by the Israeli Government to Gaza fuels even more conflict and even more distrust of the system. That is why the Government have to look seriously at whether the UK’s arms export controls and licences are helping the situation or making it worse.

The Government’s internal review identified 12 specific licences covering a range of military equipment—including components for military radar systems, combat aircraft and tanks—which, as the review states,

“could be part of equipment used by the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza.”

The review shows that there have been particular issues with Israel and Palestine. I was shocked to hear of the letter that was sent to the Chair of the Committees by the Foreign Secretary. To quote it directly, the Foreign Secretary was concerned that there was

“a serious violation of international humanitarian law”

in Israel’s response. We demand an immediate publication of the Government’s review. Our view was that no arms should be exported under existing licences while doubts remain as to whether any equipment could be used for internal repression, the abuse of human rights or to provoke prolonged arm conflict or violate international humanitarian law.

It is particularly important that we have transparency on the system in this case. The British public need assurances that the UK’s arms export sales have not been in contradiction of the consolidated criteria and have not contributed to that particular conflict. Directly on Israel and Palestine, does the Minister agree that the Government should suspend or revoke any licences for export to Israel of controlled items where there is a clear risk, or even a hint of a risk, that they will be used in combat operations in the occupied territories of Palestine? I am not an avid follower of the Minister on Twitter, but he tweeted a press release this morning condemning Israel for the continued building of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem. The Israel-Palestine peace process is fragile, and we should do all we can to ensure that arms exports are not contributing to the problem.

Finally, to travel a little further east, there are the issues in Hong Kong that are receiving international attention. At the start of the month, the Deputy Prime Minister summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear his dismay and alarm at China’s handling of pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. As The Times reported on 29 September, in handling those demonstrations—Members have mentioned this—the Hong Kong authorities used CS gas grenades made in Britain to disperse protesters. While the Deputy Prime Minister met with the Chinese, the Defence Secretary dismissed the concerns raised about the use of CS gas on protesters and said that it was “a rather immaterial point” whether the grenades were made in the UK. I am not sure whether anyone in this Chamber or anyone on the Committees on Arms Export Controls would see the use of UK-made CS gas in dispersing pro-democracy protesters as “a rather immaterial point”. In fact, it is fundamental to the report we are discussing, and to the question of whether licences should be issued or revoked in these situations. Does the Minister agree with that statement? What can we do on these issues?

The Chair of the Committees said, in his useful speech on the report, that he wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on these gas canisters. When I looked into that, the Chair had not received a response, but he indicated to the Chamber that he has now. Will the Minister clarify the points raised by the Business Secretary’s response to that letter? Have the licences been revoked?

In conclusion, I would welcome clarity from the Government on some of these issues, and in particular on their commitment to not diluting this country’s approach to export licences. Does the Minister still stand by the commitment that he will not approve an export licence if he believes that there is a clear risk that an export might be used for internal repression? We support him in that approach, which dates back to 2000, and would welcome clarity on whether he has changed it.

In the debate on the Committees’ report last year, several Members urged the Government to adopt a more cautious approach to arms exports approval. The ability to revoke or suspend export licenses is a significant and important function, but as the Chair said, once the bullets have bolted, they have bolted irreversibly. That is one of the issues that we have seen in the 12 countries of concern. We believe that the Government should not only take a more cautious approach but strengthen the prior scrutiny of licenses, and not limit scrutiny to the review of ministerial decisions only when they have already been taken.

As my right hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) and for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) would have said in their respective roles as shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Secretary of State for International Development, lessons could be learned from others in the international community. In Sweden, for example, there is an expert advisory body, headed by an independent official responsible for the oversight of export licensing, which advises on delicate pre-licence decisions before a Minister gives the final approval. In the US, Congress is given prior notification of all foreign military sales that are over specific cost thresholds and are planned for the following year and can object ahead of the Government making a final decision. Those mechanisms ensure that a more cautious approach is taken and that there is no rush to licence approval.

Alongside those domestic guidelines, there must be global ones, too. A global industry requires global guidelines. The Government are to be congratulated on their efforts on the arms trade treaty. We all welcome that being signed as early as possible. It will significantly boost efforts to stem the flow of arms to some of the world’s most volatile places and help end the transfer of weapons used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I urge the Minister and the Government to use that opportunity to show international leadership and push for ratification in all countries, and by the largest players in the globalised economy, particularly given the size of the UK defence industry.

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the steps the Government have taken to encourage countries to ratify the treaty. It was signed with such fanfare last year and is such an important contribution to the arms trade in this country and in the international environment. I close by once again paying tribute to the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, and all the members of those Committees, who are each chosen from Select Committees. The Chair’s post is a distinguished one; he deserves great credit for the legacy that he has left the House in these reports. I hope that the Minister will fulfil that superb legacy and answer all the questions the Chair posed, not only in his speech on the report, but in the report itself.

15:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Amess, to work under your chairmanship today. It is also a pleasure to respond to this important debate on the Committees’ report. I begin by giving an apology on behalf of the Minister for Business and Enterprise, who should be responding to the report. That is his place, but unfortunately, as with other members of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, he is involved in a Bill Committee elsewhere and sends his apologies. It is appropriate, however, for the Foreign Office to be involved. We scrutinise the process of approving or not approving arms exports, although the final decision is with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, not the Foreign Office. I am delighted to be here anyway.

I join others in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) for his tireless and dedicated work in chairing the Committees, which are unique in bringing together the skill sets of other Committees. I was not aware that this was his final report. I do not know what he will find himself doing next year, but he will probably want to write about this issue in another context, because he has lived and breathed it for so long. The House is indebted to him for his dedication and commitment to this important subject. We are grateful for the knowledge and expertise he has brought to the House over many years, and we thank him for his hard work.

I also thank other members of the Committees for their contributions, and I will do my best to answer their points. A challenge was thrown down—not once or twice, but a number of times—in comments about how appallingly the last Minister failed to answer all the questions posed to him. I should make it clear that I am substituting for the Minister who should have replied to the debate, so I am not sure whether I will fare any better, although I can give a commitment that if I am unable to answer any questions, I will endeavour to write to right hon. and hon. Members individually. In that way, it will not be me who gets the grief next year, when Members return to this subject after the next general election.

I thank the shadow Minister for his words, his tone and the constructive manner in which he expressed his thoughts and concerns. He spelled out the situation Britain finds itself in. The defence industry is indeed sizeable, and it is important for jobs and UK security, as well as in terms of the UK playing a responsible role on the international stage. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of issues, and I will do my best to answer him. I should say how touched I am that he follows me on Twitter, although I am afraid I have not reciprocated. When I leave here, however, I will certainly endeavour to make up for that misdemeanour.

[Ian Murray]

I will block you.

[Mr Ellwood]

I hope that is as aggressive as the debate gets. Let me reiterate that the Government take their arms export responsibilities very seriously and aim to operate one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control systems in the world. Our core objective in export licensing is to promote global security, while facilitating responsible exports. That means preventing controlled goods from falling into the wrong hands. It also means that we must not impede legitimate trade in defence and security goods.

All export licence applications are carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking into account all relevant factors at the time of the application, including the prevailing circumstances in the recipient country, the nature of the goods, the identity of the end user and the stated end use. A licence will not be issued if doing so would be inconsistent with any provision of the criteria, including if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression or external aggression.

The Government support the responsible trade in defence equipment. All nations have the right to protect themselves, as enshrined in article 51 of the UN charter, and they have the right to acquire the means to do so. Moreover, defence and security exports help to strengthen the UK economy and to support growth. As the shadow Minister said, the industry employs tens of thousands of people across the UK. In 2013, the value of UK defence and security exports rose to £13 billion—a 13% increase on the £11.5 billion recorded in 2012. Those exports also helped the UK to forge close relationships with allies and partners in support of international security objectives.

We must therefore seek to operate an efficient export licensing system that not only ensures rigorous export controls, but facilitates responsible exports. The case-by-case assessment of export licence applications remains the most effective way to balance those concerns. We follow a clear and well-understood procedure for each application, which involves circulating expert evidence to other Departments as a matter of routine, to make the best assessment possible, based on the evidence available at the time.

I want directly to address the perception that, in the relatively rare instances where licences are subsequently revoked or suspended, the export licensing system is in some way broken. That is certainly not the case. In 2012, the then Foreign Secretary conducted a review of arms exports, which found that there were no fundamental flaws with the export licensing system. However, the review did identify some areas where the system could be strengthened. As a result of that review, a suspension mechanism was introduced to ensure greater responsiveness to changing circumstances overseas.

The suspension mechanism allows for the suspension of pending licence applications to countries experiencing a sharp deterioration in security or stability such that it is not possible to make a clear assessment of whether the consolidated criteria have been met. Following EU Council decisions, it has now been applied to extant licences as well as pending applications. The suspension of licences should, therefore, be viewed not as an admission that there has been a mistake, but as an indication that, on the contrary, the system is appropriately in tune with the reality that circumstances change and that the export licensing system must be able to react appropriately.

Moreover, we have the power to revoke any licence if we judge that changed circumstances mean that it is no longer consistent with the consolidated criteria. Again, revocations should be viewed as indicative of the fact that the system can respond to change, not as a sign that our case-by-case assessment of export licence applications is flawed. We make the best decision possible at the time of each application, and if circumstances change, we can react appropriately. Action to revoke or suspend licences is, then, not a sign that the system is broken; in fact, the flexibility to respond effectively to change is a sign of health and demonstrates how seriously the Government take the guiding principle of responsible exports.

Having set out that overview, I would like to touch on a number of specific issues my right hon. Friend and others have raised. First, however, it would be useful briefly to reiterate the Government’s policy on assessing the risk of goods being used for internal repression.

Criterion 2 of the consolidated criteria, which has been mentioned a number of times, states that an export licence application should be refused if there is a “clear risk” that the goods in question might be used for internal repression or in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

Some confusion arose following the former Foreign Secretary’s evidence to the Committees in 2012, which was interpreted as suggesting that the “clear risk” test in criterion 2 had been dropped. Let me emphasise: the threshold of clear risk in criterion 2 has been the policy of successive Governments since the criteria were established in 2000, and it remains our policy. As confirmed in recent correspondence with the Committees, we have no plans to change that policy.

[Sir John Stanley]

May I correct the Minister on the point he has just made? There was no misunderstanding and no suggestion in the Committees on Arms Export Control that the criterion 2 “clear risk” test had been dropped by the Government at any point.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that clarification. I hope that what I have said, and what my right hon. Friend has now said, has set the record straight. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills reaffirmed the “clear risk” test in criterion 2 while amending the consolidated criteria in March.

Let me turn now to Russia, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. As I have outlined, the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in any export destination is an essential aspect of our export licensing system. Our reaction to the events this year in Ukraine provides a good example of our responsiveness and our determination to ensure that UK exports do not contribute to internal repression or external aggression.

Restrictive measures have been put in place against Russia, with a view to increasing the costs of Russian action to undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and promoting a peaceful settlement of the crisis. It is worth making a distinction between a collective desire to bring in sanctions, which are themselves an attempt to affect behaviour, and taking action when weapons systems or other equipment that has been sold are used in an oppressive manner. There is a distinction between the two, but they can lead to the same thing, which is the removal of some form of arms exports.

In the absence of agreement among EU partners on taking concerted action against Russia, the UK took the initiative in reacting to the deterioration in events in Ukraine by announcing the national suspension of a number of export licences in March, and that is an example of what I was just talking about. The aim was to restrict exports of equipment to the Russian military that could be used in Ukraine. As we did before announcing the action, we encouraged other EU member states to follow suit. The national suspension was superseded by sanctions against Russia, introduced by the EU in July. The package included an arms embargo and prohibitions on the export of certain technologies suited to the oil industry, on the export of dual-use equipment to Russia for military end use, and on the provision of related services.

Further restrictive measures were announced in September in response to Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. In addition, during that period we reviewed existing export licences for Russia and took the decision to revoke 39 standard individual export licences and seven open individual export licences, and to remove Russia as a permitted destination for 50 multi- destination open individual export licences. The Government will continue to monitor conditions in Ukraine and will keep export licensing restrictions under review. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked whether what the Prime Minister said on the matter referred to all or only some licences, and if I may, I shall write to him about that detail.

I am limited in what I can say about the recent conflict in Israel and Gaza, because it is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings. As hon. Members may know, the Government conducted a careful analysis of existing export licences for Israel. That review, the outcome of which was announced on 12 August, found that the vast majority of exports currently licensed are not for items that could be used by Israeli forces in operations in Gaza. During the review period, no new licences were issued to supply equipment to the Israel defence forces. However, as was mentioned in the review, 12 licences for components were identified as potentially able to contribute to equipment that could be used by the Israel defence forces in Gaza.

Following the review, the Government announced that if there was a resumption of significant hostilities, the 12 licences would be suspended. In addition, the Government continue to monitor the situation in Israel and Gaza closely, and existing licences that are found to be no longer consistent with the consolidated criteria will be revoked. It remains our overarching priority to ensure that there is a lasting settlement that enables Israelis and Palestinians to live alongside one another securely and peacefully. The UK Government will continue to work closely with colleagues in the EU and elsewhere to help achieve that. I visited Gaza, Jerusalem and Israel last month and saw what was happening on the ground. I am conscious of the mood of the House, after the Palestine debate last week. We will continue to monitor the situation.

There has been extensive interest in the recent protests in Hong Kong and the use of tear gas by the Hong Kong police. There is one extant open individual export licence to Hong Kong that includes tear gas. After careful consideration, the Government have decided that no action should be taken to revoke or suspend it. In our assessment, the use of tear gas by the Hong Kong police, with whom we have a close relationship, was judged to be an uncharacteristic response at an early stage of the protest and not indicative of a wider pattern of behaviour that would cross the threshold of criterion 2 of the consolidated criteria.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister for answering the questions that have been asked. He has said that that use of tear gas was uncharacteristic, so will he give a commitment that if it were to transpire that the Hong Kong authorities used it again, the licence would be revoked?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not want to move into hypothetical situations. We will continue to review matters, but I have explained the situation as it stands. If events move forward and circumstances change, we will review that and react responsibly according to criterion 2.

The Export Control Organisation has continued to perform efficiently over the past year in spite of various pressures. The ECO has maintained its performance targets despite an increasing volume of licence applications, with standard individual export licences up 3% on last year, and ECO’s high priority advice service to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the licensability of goods stopped at ports and airports up 30% in the same period. Together with extra work caused by the Russia sanctions, that has meant increased pressures on the ECO, which has worked hard to maintain both service levels for its customers and the robustness of our export controls, as the objective of giving applicants a decision as quickly as possible cannot outweigh the need to give every application very careful consideration.

The ECO has two main targets for processing export licence applications: a primary target to process 70% of applications within 20 working days, and a secondary target of completing 99% of applications within 60 working days. Year-to-date performance to the end of September on the primary target stands at 76%. We have now had a full year of working towards meeting the new ambitious secondary target of 99%; the target previously stood at 95%. The new target was introduced to improve the efficiency of the licensing system further. As of the end of September, I am pleased to announce that we are now meeting the new target for the year to date.

My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary decided last year that it was appropriate to look at the proposal for a pre-licensing register of arms brokers; that has been mentioned in the debate. The Export Control Organisation made a public call for evidence this year to help to gather the necessary evidence to allow the Government to decide whether to introduce such a register. Our emphasis when looking at the proposal has been on the relative costs and benefits, and the likely effectiveness. The feedback from the call for evidence is being analysed and discussed. We intend to publish the results as soon as possible, most likely towards the end of the year.

The Government remain committed to greater transparency in export licensing, as demonstrated by the transparency initiative announced last year, which expanded reporting activity under certain open export licences. As has been explained to the Committees previously, in making the final preparations for the initiative, it became apparent that we may not have had the right balance between the twin objectives of increasing transparency and avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary became concerned that the proposed reporting would put UK exporters at a disadvantage in relation to exporters from other countries. That is why he decided that users of certain open licences would be required to make reports on their usage of those licences on an annual basis, rather than quarterly as originally envisaged.

It is important to reiterate that we have not reduced the overall level of reporting; we will publish considerably more information about the usage of open licences than we do now. All such initiatives are subject to review, but the new reporting requirements came into place at the start of this year, and the data for this year are due to be published in 2015. It is important to allow sufficient time for the new measures to be established before we can consider whether further changes are necessary. We therefore intend to commence a review of the initiative towards the end of the year.

I want to touch on the arms trade treaty. I had the privilege of participating in a number of decisions at the UN General Assembly in September. I am delighted to say that 54 countries have now ratified the treaty, which will enter into force on 24 December—Christmas eve. The successful conclusion of the arms trade treaty was a significant achievement for the UN, but also for the UK, which has worked tirelessly with the co-authors group, and bilaterally. We are, as has been requested, encouraging other nations, in the course of regular contact with them and via the EU ATT outreach project, to sign and ratify it. The UK places a great deal of importance on as many nations signing up as possible; and I believe that we are heading in that direction.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) spoke about the spread of conflict in Libya and Syria, and that is a massive concern for the Government—and for others. We are concerned about the flow of weapons systems, and the loss of control over what is happening spilling down to Mali, and so forth. The situation reflects the changing circumstances that we must deal with. The hon. Lady also spoke about intrusion software. The pace of the technology that we are aware of can sometimes run ahead of legislation, so the work of the Committees and the Government to keep pace with changing technology is always important.

It is worth mentioning that the controls on monitoring equipment were agreed in the 2011 Wassenaar arrangement, and implementation through the EU dual-use regulation amendment is expected by the end of 2014. There will be a publication, and a journal put forward, in due course.

[Ann McKechin]

Will the Minister confirm—or, if he cannot do so today, write to confirm—whether his Department or fellow Ministers are assured that implementation will occur by the end of this year? If not, are alternatives being considered?

[Mr Ellwood]

That was going to be my next point. I cannot give the hon. Lady an answer today, but I had written down “timetable”. I will certainly get in touch with her to provide more information.

The hon. Lady and others mentioned the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition. I have visited it many times and find it a little bizarre that one can buy things that are illegal in this country. The Government are reviewing their response to DSEI 2013 to consider any improvements to the processes that can be made before next year’s event. Officials from across Government will continue to work closely with Clarion Events to ensure that exhibitors comply with export and trade controls and understand their obligations.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—I almost called him my hon. Friend—and I have met four times in debates or meetings over the past few days. I will be astonished if we meet tomorrow at the Conservative party away day, but he is always welcome. I join him in paying tribute to the late Robin Cook, who pioneered much of the work that we are now taking forward. That is his legacy. Members on both sides of the House remember him for that, pay tribute to the work that he did in ensuring that Britain plays a more responsible role in arms exports, and encourage other countries to do the same.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Gaza and the cycle of destruction. The matter came up at the UN General Assembly; Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General, was almost in tears when discussing whether destruction, reconstruction, destruction, and then reconstruction is what now happens. I digress slightly, but Britain must play its part with the EU and the international community to try to break that cycle.

The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about Bahrain. There is no evidence of UK equipment sold to Bahrain being used in breach of the EU or national consolidated criteria on export licensing, but we have refused licences to Bahrain for internal security forces, where we are not satisfied about the risks around internal repression. If he has anymore thoughts on that, he can write to me and I will be delighted to respond.

I do not have the details to respond to the hon. Gentleman on Sri Lanka, but he mentioned the Prime Minister’s visit. It was bold to go out and make a case about the Tamil people’s concerns. I will write to him regarding our position on arms exports and Sri Lanka.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Vienna conference, which we discussed at Foreign and Commonwealth questions. The trouble is that it is unclear what the conference wants to achieve other than the removal of all nuclear weapons. It is Britain’s long-term intention to reach that position, but if we drop our guard before other hostile countries with nuclear weapons do, we will leave ourselves vulnerable. We share the long-term ambition, but differ on how we will get there.

The shadow Minister mentioned brass-plate companies and enforcement action. Existing legislation would, in certain circumstances, allow such action to be taken against brass-plate companies and their officers. However, any action must be justified by sufficient evidence. With other relevant agencies, the Government continue to pursue the possibility of using other legislation to discontinue the UK registration of such companies on public interest grounds. As he will appreciate, the issue is complex and raises difficult questions about the nature of the evidence that might be disclosed in any proceedings. We will update the Committees and the shadow Minister when any firm conclusions have been reached.

In conclusion, I again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and other hon. Members for their attendance today. I reiterate my thanks to the Committees on Arms Export Controls for their report and work. The Committees’ scrutiny remains an important aid to the licensing process, and I continue to look forward to their contributions and continuing dialogue over the coming year.

15:35

[Sir John Stanley]

I thank all hon. Members for their generous comments on my endeavours as Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls. It is a unique conjunction of Committees to chair. I have no equestrian background at all, but I have likened it to trying to get a 16-horse stagecoach moving reasonably well in the same direction, which is particularly difficult when there is no ability to vote. We have achieved a lot even in just getting out the reports that we have. I thank hon. Members for their kind personal comments. I hope that the dedicated contributions of the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) will be big plusses in their getting elected to one of the four Select Committees in the next Parliament. Perhaps one of them may end up as my successor. I wish them well.

I will briefly make one comment about the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. She rightly and acutely picked up that the Government appear to have erected an additional hurdle before revocations or suspensions can take place to extant arms exports licences to Israel. I want to highlight to her an extraordinary contradiction that I am sure we will want to pursue. The Government have on the one hand dropped the broad test in the October 2000 statement of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) from the consolidated criteria, but they have brought it back when dealing with suspensions. We made that point in paragraph 126 of our report:

“The Committees conclude that the Government’s decision to apply the broad test of ‘equipment which might be used for internal repression’ rather than the narrow test of ‘clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression’ for deciding whether arms export licences should be suspended is welcome.”

I cannot begin to explain the Government’s contradictory position on that key point, but I am sure that we will be considering it further in Committee.

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington North, who has been a dedicated attender of our debates. As for the four countries to which he referred specifically, he will be glad to know that they will all continue to be the subject of detailed scrutiny by the Committees. Three of the countries, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka, are of course among the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 28 countries of top human rights concern. He must have been glad to see that the Committees on their own initiative have added Bahrain to the five other countries of concern that we highlighted and gave details of in our report.

As I heard it, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made what I consider to be an extremely welcome policy commitment on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench. I understood him to be saying that it is now the policy of the Opposition to restore the dropped wording that came from the October 2000 statement by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain).

If the hon. Gentleman is looking for any reinforcement of the Opposition Front-Bench position from the Back Benches, I draw his attention to paragraph 123 of our report:

“As the broad test that: ‘An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by […] concern that the goods might be used for internal repression’, which has been Government policy since October 2000, provides an important safeguard against military and dual-use goods, components, software and technology being exported from the UK from being used for internal repression, the Committees recommend that this now omitted wording is re-introduced into the Government’s arms exports controls policy.”

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that that was a unanimous recommendation of all parties on all four of the Select Committees concerned, which should give him some back-up to the welcome policy position that he enunciated.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the debate and for saying that he will send us answers in writing to those questions that he has not been able to deal with. I would be grateful if he could send me a copy as well, if that is in order, because I will obviously want to know what he says in response to the points made by other colleagues.

I must make it clear to the Minister that he did not address the fundamental policy issue as far as arms exports and internal repression are concerned. He made a number of references to criterion 2, what we call the narrow test or the “clear risk” test, which is a very limited test for a very simple reason. When can a risk be said to be clear? We can pretty well sell almost anything to anyone by saying, “There is a risk, but it isn’t clear, so we can approve the export licence.” That is the acute limitation of that test. If someone looks at our report and looks at the list of what has been approved by the Government, and for sale to which particular regimes, it can be seen just what a very limited test that is. That is why the Committees attached such importance to the restoration of the broad test—we have quoted this successively in the debate and I quote it for a final time—if we are to deal seriously and genuinely with not allowing to go out of the UK with Government approval British weapons that

“might be used for internal repression”.

Question put and agreed to.

15:42

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

Thursday 30 October 2014

Financial Policy Committee (Housing Market Tools)

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

The Government have today published a consultation on granting the independent Financial Policy Committee new powers over the UK’s housing market.

In his Mansion House speech on 12 June 2014 the Chancellor committed to ensuring that the FPC has,

“all the weapons it needs to guard against risks in the housing market.”

He announced his intention to give the FPC,

“new powers over mortgages, including over the size of mortgage loans as a share of family incomes or the value of the house.”

He said that the Treasury would consult on the tools, and that they would be in place before the end of this Parliament.

In response to the Chancellor’s announcement, on 2 October 2014, the FPC recommended that it be granted the power to direct the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to require regulated lenders to place limits on owner-occupied and buy-to-let mortgage lending by reference to:

Loan-to-value (LTV) ratios; and

Debt-to-income (DTI) ratios, including interest coverage ratios (ICR) in respect of buy-to-let lending.

In response to this recommendation by the FPC, the Government are consulting on legislating to give the FPC powers of direction over LTV limits and DTI limits in respect of owner-occupied mortgages. Currently, the FPC can only make recommendations in relation to these tools. The Government intend to consult separately in 2015 on the FPC’s recommendations that it be granted powers of direction in respect of the buy-to-let mortgage market, with a view to building an in-depth evidence base on how the operation of the UK buy-to-let housing market may carry risks to financial stability.

The consultation that has been published today contains draft secondary legislation that will provide the Financial Policy Committee with the new powers of direction. The Treasury seeks responses to the consultation by 28 November 2014, in advance of laying the secondary legislation before Parliament in early 2015.

Copies of the consultation document The Financial Policy Committee’s housing market tools have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and published on the HM Treasury website.

Better Care Fund

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are today approving plans to join up health and care services across the country for the first time. This will improve care and provide more dignity for older and vulnerable people, as well as reducing accident and emergency admissions and lengths of stay in hospital.

People are happier and healthier when they have family and friends nearby. So investing in care services that are tailored to individual needs make sense. It means people can stay at home for longer, which is better for everyone involved.

They can also be helped back to health in high-quality community care centres or leave hospital more quickly when they do have to be admitted. This will not only improve services and reduce waste, it will give elderly people the dignity and independence they deserve in later life.

This has been made possible by the Government’s £5.3 billion better care fund, initially set at £3.8 billion but which has increased significantly following additional local investment. This will bring GPs, community nurses, and care workers together so they can provide the better care closer to home that keeps people independent and healthy for longer, preventing unnecessary stays in hospital and giving families more confidence over how their loved ones are looked after.

People will be able to get the right care when and where they need it, including at the weekend, thanks to a new national standard of seven-day health and social care. The local plans being approved today aim to prevent around 160,000 accident and emergency admissions, 2,000 care home admissions and result in over 100,000 fewer delayed discharges, meaning people get home from hospital more quickly when they do have to be admitted.

NHS England also estimates that, based on local plans, the fund will be supporting at least 18,000 individuals in roles delivering care out in the community. This will be a range of social workers, occupational therapists, care navigators, doctors and nurses, deployed based on local needs and delivering outside of the hospital.

Developed together by councils and local NHS organisations, these plans are the centrepiece of the Government’s commitment to joining up the health and care system. They will help to put the service user first and make this vision for joined-up care a reality across the country for the first time.

I would urge hon. Members to read their own local plan and support their health and wellbeing board in developing its plans to give the elderly more dignity in later life.

I am also grateful for support from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has responsibility for care and support, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has responsibility for local government, NHS England and the Local Government Association.

Afghanistan (Progress Report)

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 41st progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.



After a protracted period of negotiation, Dr Ashraf Ghani and Dr Abdullah Abduallah signed the agreement forming a National Unity Government at the presidential palace on 21 September. The agreement committed Dr Ghani and Dr Abdullah to creating a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position by presidential decree straight after the inauguration and to holding a Loya Jirga within two years to consider amending the constitution to formalise the CEO role into that of an executive Prime Minister.

President Ghani’s inauguration took place on 29 September. The first democratic transfer of power from one elected President to another, marked a truly historic moment in the history of Afghanistan. The Ghani Government signed the bilateral security agreement and the NATO status of forces agreement on 30 September.

The NATO Wales summit discussed Afghanistan on 4 September. The meeting paid tribute to ISAF and Afghan sacrifices, recognised their achievements, and underlined continuing international commitment to supporting Afghanistan. A subsequent ISAF declaration outlined in particular the NATO-led support envisaged for Afghanistan after 2014.

Following the NATO summit, the Prime Minister told Parliament on 8 September, Official Report, column 655:

“We reaffirmed our long term commitment to supporting a peaceful, prosperous and stable Afghanistan, including through our development conference in London in November.”

This is now planned for 3 to 4 December.

The Secretary of State for Defence travelled to Kabul on 23 to 24 September for a visit timed to enable him to deliver the keynote speech at the ceremony marking the graduation of the first Kandak (battalion) from the UK-sponsored Afghan National Army Officer Academy (ANAOA). He was the first international Minister to meet with President Ghani and CEO Abdullah.

I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the gov.uk website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/afghanistan-progress-reports.

Non-Departmental Public Bodies (Triennial Reviews)

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the start of the triennial reviews of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the British Pharmacopoeia Commission (BPC), the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee (ARSAC) and the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP).

All Government Departments are required to review their non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) at least once every three years. Due to the wide ranging reforms made by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Department was exempt from the first round of reviews in 2011-14. In order to ensure that the Department is an effective system steward and can be assured of all the bodies it is responsible for, we have extended the programme of reviews over the next three years to all of its arm’s length bodies and Executive agencies.

The reviews of the aforementioned bodies have been selected to commence during the first year of the programme (2014-15). The reviews will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will examine the continuing need for the function and whether the organisation’s form, including operating at arm’s length from government, remains appropriate. If the outcome of this stage is that delivery should continue, the second stage of the review will assess whether the bodies are operating efficiently and in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance.

Drugs Policy

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

In December 2013, I commissioned an expert panel to look at the challenge of new psychoactive substances (NPS). In my written ministerial statement at that time, I made it clear that we are prepared to enhance our UK–wide legislative framework to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the best available powers, sending out the clearest possible message that the trade in these substances is reckless and that these substances can be dangerous, even fatal. I also asked the expert panel to consider the education, prevention and treatment response to NPS and make recommendations.

Today I am pleased to publish the expert panel’s report and recommendations on this challenging issue alongside the Government’s response to those recommendations.

The expert panel is clear that new psychoactive substances—these so called “legal” highs—present a challenge that cannot be ignored. The UK has been quicker to respond to this challenge than most other countries, putting in place a forensic early warning system, banning more than 350 substances and leading the global response through the United Nations and G7. We have ensured that local authorities are aware of and use existing powers under drugs, medicines and consumer protection legislation to disrupt NPS supply. We have provided consistent and evidence-based messaging on the risks of NPS through guidance to schools, FRANK (the Government’s online drug awareness service) and targeted communications activity. We are also rapidly developing clinical responses to these substances via front-line services. However we recognise that there is more to do to tackle the issue of new psychoactive substances, which have claimed the lives of far too many young people.

The expert panel recognised that our current approach has real strengths that should be built on and not dismissed. In addition, they have made wide ranging recommendations across a number of areas including treatment and intervention, prevention, education and information sharing.

In response to these recommendations I am announcing today a range of actions. We will develop proposals for a blanket ban similar to that introduced in Ireland in 2010. This would give law enforcement greater powers to tackle the market in so called “legal” highs in general, instead of on a substance by substance basis. I have also commissioned the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to provide advice on a cutting edge way of basing legal controls for future synthetic drugs that mimic cannabis and on the effects these substances have on the brain rather than their chemical structure. The expert panel highlighted a number of factors that will need to be considered in taking these recommendations forward in the UK context. We therefore think it is important to take the time necessary to ensure that any legislation developed in response to the expert panel’s recommendations is carefully considered and will work in the UK.

In response to the expert panel’s wider recommendations, we will also implement a comprehensive action plan that includes strengthening training given to front-line NHS staff to deal with the effects of NPS use and the publication of new guidance by Public Health England for local authorities, including advice on integrating new psychoactive substances into local drugs education, prevention and treatment work.

In addition to the expert panel’s report and Government’s response we are publishing a wider Home Office evidence paper—“New Psychoactive Substances in England—A Review of the Evidence.” This paper builds on the evidence considered and set out in the expert panel’s report.

Alongside these publications, today we are also publishing the findings of the Government’s international study of drugs policies. The report, Drugs: International Comparators, describes a selection of policy and operational responses to drugs misuse in other countries. The approaches explored in the report were seen by Ministers and officials from the Home Office during international fact-finding activities that took place between May 2013 and March 2014. These included visits to, and discussions with: Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Uruguay. The report includes an assessment of the drugs situation in the UK and a description of the current and future challenges for policymakers.

The study has provided a sound base of evidence on approaches to drugs misuse and drug addiction in other countries. In many cases, the differences between the approach other countries have taken illustrate the complexity of the challenge, and demonstrate why we cannot simply adopt another country’s approach wholesale. The UK’s approach on drugs remains clear: we must prevent drug use in our communities, help dependent individuals through treatment and wider recovery support, while ensuring law enforcement protects society by stopping the supply and tackling the organised crime that is associated with the drugs trade. Based on what we have learned, the UK will continue to advocate a balanced, evidence-based approach to the misuse of drugs internationally.

All four of these publications can be found on the gov.uk website and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

British-Irish Visa Scheme (Indian and Chinese Citizens)

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

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

I am today making a ministerial authorisation under schedule 3, part 4, paragraph 17 (4)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. This authorisation may be cited as the Equality (British-Irish Visa Scheme––Indian and Chinese Citizens) authorisation.

The authorisation will allow Chinese and Indian citizens to transit through the UK en route to the Republic of Ireland under the transit without visa concession (TWOV). To qualify, individuals must meet the criteria for the TWOV and hold an Irish short-stay visa or subsequent stamp conferring leave in Ireland endorsed with the BIVS. No additional requirements are being imposed on these individuals, other than those already required of them as visa nationals for the purposes of entry clearance to travel to the UK.

The UK and Irish Governments are working in close co-operation to protect the security of the external border of the common travel area. Joint work is under way to ensure our checks are effective at preventing individuals who intend either country harm from entering, while preserving the right of free movement for those who are lawfully present.

The UK will recognize certain Irish visas under the British-Irish visa scheme. It is therefore no longer necessary to impose a transit visa requirement on Chinese and Indian citizens who have been issued a visa under this scheme.

The British-Irish visa scheme is part of this joint UK-Ireland work, allowing eligible visitors to travel to the UK and the Republic of Ireland on a single visa. Subsequent roll-out of the scheme to other nationalities is envisaged but is subject to the outcome of an evaluation process of the first phase.

The authorisation will facilitate tourism to the Republic of Ireland and the UK by removing the requirement for Indian and Chinese citizens, eligible for the British-Irish visa scheme and subject to the enhanced Irish visa regime, to obtain transit visas to travel to the Republic of Ireland through the UK.

I therefore consider the ministerial authorisation to be reasonable, rational, proportionate and necessary for maintaining the integrity of the immigration system.

The authorisation shall come into operation on 13 October 2014 and remain in force until 1 December 2014.

I am placing a copy of the authorisation in the Library of the House.

Deaths of Service Personnel on Overseas Operations

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

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

My hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans and I present our latest joint statement reporting progress with coroner investigations into the deaths of UK service personnel on active service overseas. We wish as always to pay tribute to our armed forces for the constant courage and skill with which they serve our country. We particularly remember those service personnel who have given their lives. Our thoughts remain with their families.

This statement indicates the position at 23 October 2014 on open investigations and inquests which the senior coroners for Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and Swindon and other coroner areas in England and Wales are conducting.

As supplementary information to this statement we have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses. The tables include the status of all cases and show whether there has been or will be a service inquiry. In the earlier years covered, a service inquiry was known as a board of inquiry.

The Ministry of Defence’s defence inquests unit continues to work with coroners, including a cadre of coroners who have received special training in handling service personnel inquests. Together they make sure that everything possible is done to progress and complete investigations quickly and thoroughly. Should it be appropriate in future for an investigation to be held in Scotland instead of England and Wales, Section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides for this.

Our thanks are due to coroners and their staff for their thoroughness and compassion in these vitally important investigations. We are grateful to the Chief Coroner for his essential contribution to improving processes, and once more we thank everyone who helps and informs bereaved families at every stage of the investigation.

Repatriations of service personnel who have died overseas have mainly taken place at RAF Lyneham in the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner area, and, currently, RAF Brize Norton in the Oxfordshire coroner area. To help the senior coroners for those two areas to take service personnel inquests forward without affecting the local caseload, since 2007 the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice have made joint additional funding available.

Current status of inquests

Since our last statement on 17 July there have been a further four inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations. The total of inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have died on active service or who have died in the UK of injuries sustained on active service is 614. Three deaths led to no formal inquest. In one of these cases it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland after a serviceman who had made a partial recovery died there from his injuries. The other two deaths were taken into consideration at inquests into deaths which occurred in the same incidents.

Coroners' investigations which have been opened

Deaths in Afghanistan

As at 23 October, 17 coroner investigations are open into the deaths of service personnel on operations.

The senior coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon has retained six of the open investigations. The senior coroner for Oxfordshire has retained eight, and senior coroners for areas closer to the next-of-kin are conducting the other three open coroner investigations. Nine hearing dates have been listed.

Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured

No coroner investigations are open in relation to service personnel who returned home injured and have then died from their injuries.

We will continue to inform the House of progress.

Work Capability Assessments

Thursday 30th October 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The previous Government appointed Atos the sole provider for carrying out work capability assessments in 2008.

On 27 March, Official Report, column 56-58WS, the former Minister with responsibility for disabled people announced that following negotiations with Atos, the Government had reached a mutual agreement for Atos to exit the contract to deliver health-related assessments including work capability assessments before it is due to end in August 2015.

Following a rigorous procurement exercise, I am pleased to announce today that MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd has been awarded the contract to deliver health-related assessments including the work capability assessments for DWP. The contract is to provide a national service for three years, with the option to extend twice by a further year. Operational service will commence on 1 March 2015.

The transfer of undertakings protection of employment regulations will apply and most of the Atos employees currently employed on this contract will transfer to MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd, who will also use the existing Atos infrastructure and IT. The new provider will therefore be able to step into the contract without disrupting the service.

My absolute priority for MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd will be to transition the service smoothly from the current provider and stabilise the operation to deliver the best service possible for claimants, increase the volume of assessments carried out and reduce waiting times without compromising quality.

MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd runs health care programmes in Australia, Canada and the United States and is one of the largest occupational health providers in the UK. It employs large numbers of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals and brings years of experience conducting independent health assessments. MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd is already a key Work programme provider and was recently awarded a contract to run the Department’s new Fit for Work service.

MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd will bring both clinical expertise and a fresh approach that, over time, will significantly reduce waiting times and provide a better experience for claimants. A key focus of its plan is on recruiting and retaining the high-quality health care professionals the service needs. MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd staff will spend more time engaging with and helping claimants earlier in the process, so that claimants know what to expect and can better prepare for the assessments. This should help reduce the number of people who currently do not attend assessments.

I am confident MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd will bring about the changes required to improve claimants’ experience of the assessment process.

We already have in place an agreement with Atos covering the remaining term of its contract. This agreement is more robust, with an agreed performance regime that gives us confidence delivery goals will be achieved. My Department, Atos and MAXIMUS Health and Human Services Ltd will work together during the transition period to ensure a smooth handover.

Atos will continue to deliver health-related assessments including work capability assessments in Northern Ireland under a separate contract.